Dawkins at KU

Just wanted to point out that Arkansas was relatively close for some people to come. At least two people I spoke to flew in from Florida just for this event.

I was frankly surprised that he hasn't thought about, or didn't want to discuss, how he envisions moral systems being constructed.

That isn't the only thing he hasn't thought about. In an amazing debate which he had last week in Ireland, he was more than once left speechless by the excellent questions of Irish journalist David Quinn:

See the 10/9 listing here:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/thetubridyshow/1109112.html

While Dawkins is a good speaker, he is quite frankly over-rated as a debater. And while he can expect the usual puff balls from an adoring (and largely ignorant) media here, I'm sure he is in no hurry to go back to Ireland.

Sigh. As someone who is weary from fighting evolution battles in the trenches here in Kansas while Dr. Dawkins holds forth from a professorship in the UK, I was pretty annoyed by his response that even if it's bad politics, he is morally compelled to proselytize for atheism because "it's the truth."

This comment reminded me of President Bush on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the coast of California, saying "Bring 'em on" while American soldiers are being shot at half a world away. Sure, Dawkins gives mad props to Kansas science teachers for their courage, but given a choice between helping them in their PR battle by holding his tongue and evangelizing for his atheist ideology, he'd rather evangelize for atheism.

What Bush and Dawkins have in common is that they're both fundamentalists, and as such are completely uninterested in winning real-world battles. They're only interested in fighting interminable, polarizing, and bloody wars.

Rachel -- I agree with you 100%, but be prepared to be dogpiled by the crowd!

There are a lot of people in the greater scienceblogs community who share the Dawkins/PZ-Myers view that not antiscience, but religion itself is the true enemy, and that it's a waste of time to argue for good science without arguing that all religious people are deluded, stupid, and the enemy.

-Rob

I was disappointed by his thoughts on morality as well. I was expecting him to say something along the lines of empathy being the basis for morality, but no such luck.

Josh said,
an explanation of the flaws of intelligent design creationism and the intellectual poverty that it encourages,

"Intellectual poverty"? LOL Intelligent design and other criticisms of evolution theory actually help spur scientific research by forcing scientists to confront weaknesses in the theory. For example, research to try to determine possible pathways for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems is really ID research or ID-inspired research. Attempts to suppress criticism of evolution theory are anti-science and anti-intellectual.

============================================

Dear National Science Foundation,

I would like a grant of one billion dollars for a research program to show that criticisms of my theory are so ridiculous that they are not even worthy of consideration.

Sincerely,

Prof. Charles Darwin

Rachel, yes, it is bad politics to express 'inconvenient truths'. Please wait until all the battles that can be adversely affected in order to advance your agenda.

What he didn't address is that the legal and theoretical arguments against presenting IDC in science classes relate to science being secular, not promoting some religious views over others.

It's possible that, being from a country where there is no official separation of church and state, he doesn't understand the importance of this.

But personally, I don't see a problem: for every Richard Dawkins, you can wheel out a Ken Miller or a Francis Collins, showing that understanding and agreeing with evolutionary science does not require you to be an atheist. If anything, the fact that you can come out of your Biology class as a Christian or an atheist or holding any other metaphysical stance you care to name reinforces its secular nature - in contrast, how many Muslims or Jews do you know who believe Jesus was the son of God?

"What Bush and Dawkins have in common is that they're both fundamentalists, and as such are completely uninterested in winning real-world battles."

Amen, Rachel! You're *exactly* right - Dawkins isn't the one who has to deal with Kansas science students and their parents day in, day out. Although he recognized teachers as being on the front lines of the battle, he refuses to stop giving ammo to the other side.

It's always interesting to read another perspective on these KU lectures.

Here's one:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006/10/dawkins.html

But I was intrigued that he seemed to indicate that he hadn't really got an answer for where he derives his moral philosophy from.

So you're disappointed that he didn't fit a 2600 year dialogue into a sound bite slot. Where does an atheist's morality come from? The same place as a theist's, only he is aware of it.
.
To see the error of accepting morality on divine authority, see Plato's Euthyphro dialogue. It was first published ~ 2400 years ago. To summarize, is something good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good? See any intro philosophy text for more.
.
That takes care of the theory end. The practice end is equally simple, and from your account Dawkins handled it adequately in his talk: Christians do not follow the moral authority they tout. Stonings, slavery, genocide, monogamy; it is very easy to find examples of how modern day Christians have deviated from their alleged source of morality. How can they do that without acknowledging the error of their alleged source? Are they even aware of the real source of their morality?
.
There are numerous ethical systems that do not depend on theism: The Golden Rule, Kant's categorical imperative, Utilitarianism. These are theoretical. In practice, an individual's morality probably comes largely from his culture; his family and others he interacts with, and from his reactions to that, both rational and emotional.
.
Or perhaps you are interested, in a broader sense, in where human morality originates and why it persists. That is being studied within an evolutionary perspective. The existence of ethics in animals supports this approach.

He said that he thinks he does harm simply because atheists are perceived as evil, which means his atheism would tend to undermine his presentation.

I think he's right about that, and there is plenty of evidence to support it.
Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists
If a large number of American Christians have an irrational fear of atheism, and will dismiss an argument because it is made by an atheist (examples of this abound), it seems to be piling on for you to blame this on the atheist.

I was mostly disappointed by his talk as well. It was basically a standard rebuttal to ID, followed by an un-nuanced comedy routine about religion. Despite the book title, there was basically nothing controversial there for a modern theologian or philospher. Unsophisticated.

However, my heart was warmed by all of those apparently atheist Kansans in the audience cheering him on. Scholars they may not be, but there seems to be hope for the future of science education in Kansas!

Mustafa: "So you're disappointed that he didn't fit a 2600 year dialogue into a sound bite slot. Where does an atheist's morality come from? The same place as a theist's, only he is aware of it."

Fine. But that isn't what Dawkins said. Above, a commenter mentioned rooting personal ethics in empathy, which gets us to the Golden Rule, Kant, Rawls, etc. I've advanced those arguments (and cited the Euthyphro dilemma) often enough. I wasn't looking for Dawkins to answer me, I was looking for him to offer some background to people who don't know the range of theory on non-theistic moral systems.

And frankly, just knocking down the idea of deriving morality from a trivial literal reading of the Bible is dangerously close to the "illogic of default" that he decried elsewhere. It isn't that the positive argument for non-theistic systems doesn't exist, he just didn't bother to present it.

I am fully capable of presenting the argument that the Golden Rule is derivable from evolutionary game theory, Kant, Rawls, or the Bible in the time Dawkins had for that question.

Not answering that question with a forceful positive answer hurts Dawkins' ability to advance his own war. Yes, people perceive atheists badly, and mostly that comes from a belief (wrong) that atheists lack a basis for moral behavior. Explaining what that basis is for him (and for theists in practice) would do more to advance his goal than all the railing against the inconsistencies of the Bible anyone could muster.

It's unfortunate that Dawkins isn't addressing the moral issue in more detail. What irks me about many of the religious believers that I know is that they think religious belief is a requirement for morality. Part of this delusion comes from them simply not thinking about the issue. Also, they rarely, if ever, hear from people in the public sphere who claim to be atheists. In other words, in America there are few positive examples of atheists because it's such a taboo and people are afraid to be stereotyped. That's one of the reasons I approve of Dawkins and Dennett getting out there on the talk-show circuit.

I think that the comparison of Dawkins to Bush is plain silly. Calling Dawkins a "fundamentalist" is the same as people on the left calling everyone they don't like a "fascist". Who's piling on whom?

Richard, I agree that there was really a missed opportunity there. His discussion in the book was somewhat better, but if you want to undermine the attitude that atheists are horned devils, you really do have to address those concerns directly.

And that's true of the evolution battle, too. Most voters who oppose evolution aren't worrying about the details of evolution or creationism, they are worried about morality. They think that origins are how we get morality, and evolution doesn't come with a moral compass embedded in it. Pointing out the Euthyphro dilemma, and the ways that the moral codes we all agree on (contra "Ling") can be derived from evolutionary game theory just as well as they can be from Biblical creation is a powerful way of addressing that genuine concern.

As for calling Dawkins a fundamentalist, I think the label fits. I'm enough of a phenomenologist that I don't care why people behave well, so long as they do. Fundamentalism is about a return to and an insistence on fundamental ideological principles, and attempting to impose those principles on others. That's certainly what I felt his book was attempting to do (though I'll note that his speech was substantially toned down on that matter).

Yes, "fundamentalist," like "fascist," can be misused or overused. Words mean things and should be used with care. I think referring to Dawkins as a fundamentalist does so. (for the Bushites, I agree with Dave Neiwert that pseudo-fascism is more apt).

John Farrell said: "In an amazing debate which he had last week in Ireland, he was more than once left speechless by the excellent questions of Irish journalist David Quinn." Close quote.

Nope. Quinn kept talking over Dawkins, harping about how science can't explain free will or the origin of matter, so there must be a god. I find Dawkins a bit abrasive, but Quinn is a holy jerk.

Emanuel Goldstein said: "Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other followers of atheistic philosophies killed 100 MILLION people in the 20th century alone!

Atheism is the ROOT OF ALL EVIL!

I will never submit to atheist rule!!!

Jolly good for you!

But I thought that love of money was the root of all evil...

Money? The Root of All Evil?

Actually, the bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

Which is kinda actually what he wrote in the first place.

Modern man says, there is no evil, the fit survive and the weak perish.

Take your pick.

Hilter liked the last one, so thats what he picked.

But Hitler had to intervene (use intelligent design) because it wasn't working out the way he wanted naturally.

I think it's slightly more accurate to say that Dawkins sees faith as a root (not necessarily the only one) of (some?) evil.

And I don't see a lot of "modern men" or women embracing the idea that evil doesn't exist.

The trollish taxonomy has other flaws. None of which have anything at all to do with the discussion the adults were having.

Nope. Quinn kept talking over Dawkins, harping about how science can't explain free will...

Free will? He could stand to spend some time with "Free" Will Provine.

No Free Will by Will Provine

Goldstein,

You've conveniently left out Hitler, the KKK, Torquemada, the al qaeda, etc.

I agree that Dawkin's rhetoric about it being "child abuse" to teach your children religion as the Truth, but your villianizing atheists is just as asinine.

Can't we all just get along?

I meant to say that I think Dawkins is over the top with his anti-religion rhetoric.

I think I have free will, therefore I do.

Anyway, whatever I have, it's close enough.

Clarissa, Dawkins has said that he didn't like the title that got put on his series, and insisted that at least the producers had to put a question mark on it. He as also said that it's foolish to call any one thing the root of ALL evil.

Words do matter, as does accuracy. I encourage you to apply that lesson in your own writing.

Goldstein,
You've conveniently left out Hitler, the KKK, Torquemada, the al qaeda, etc.

Yes, he left them out, which is appropriate since none of these were atheistic. Goldstein seems unusually well-informed for a troll. I was impressed.

Mustafa,

I know you're being facetious, but you've made my point. For every Pol Pot Goldstein can offer, I'll ante him up with an Urban II. Fundamentalists love to sully humanisitic atheism with the memory of Mao and Stalin, but tend to forget the atrocities committed in the name of their chosen deity. (And, try as they might to spin the issue, the followers of Christ are still in the lead when it comes to total murders and savage butchery.)

Clarissa, who are you quoting? Quotation marks imply that someone else said those words, but they didn't.

And where is the evidence that Dawkins had a say in that title, beyond insisting that it be phrased as a question, not an assertion (which you conveniently tried to turn it into).

I think it's a difficult argument to make that Dawkins' thought processes are the same as a Christian fundamentalist's regarding existential questions. To me the term "fundamentalism" means (in part) accepting an ideology regardless of evidence. I think that Dawkins' method of argument is different in kind to that of religious fundamentalists, and so the insult doesn't fit. Sticking to principle, when there is no evidence showing that priniple to be incorrect, is not fundamentalism, it's consistency. We all try to argue for the principles we believe in, and I don't think that makes us all fundamentalists, so why does it make Dawkins one?

TFK wrote:
"I was frankly surprised that he hasn't thought about, or didn't want to discuss, how he envisions moral systems being constructed."

'Hadn't thought about'? He wrote almost half a book on the subject!

(Re)read "The Selfish Gene." Look into Evolutionarily Stable Strategies. Morality is an ESS. It uses Nash equillibriums to enforce compliance.

Dawkins has thought quite a lot about how moral systems are constructed. It's because of his writing that I even understand how moral systems are constructed.

Historically, fundamentalism originated as a movement to move back to the religious fundamentals. It rejects the sorts of accommodation that liberal theologians would make. NOMA, attempts at integrating theology within the evidence that science gives.

A fundamentalist would argue that his evidence is just of a different sort than yours and mine.

I see fundamentalism as linked with intolerance for others' beliefs, and as a descriptive label, not an insult per se.

Fundamentalism is the strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology. Could you name these doctrines that Dawkins insist we hold strictly? What religion is he advancing? Even, what ideology?

I don't think you can just blithely redefine words that have specific meanings in that way.

If we play that game, though, and pretend "intolerant of other's beliefs" is the Rosenau definition of fundamentalism, what intolerance is Dawkins peddling? Has he suggested that theists should not be allowed to vote, perhaps, or is he just asking that they not run for political office? Jailing? Stoning?

Or is the fact that he's one of the rare public figures who speaks out against religion enough to call him intolerant?

Siamang, I was going from his statement in the Q&A that morality has changed over time and that "I don't know what it's due to."

You are right that he has thought about it, and I was being imprecise when I wrote that. It may be that he is no longer convinced that game theory alone is sufficient to explain moral systems, or he may also have been speaking imprecisely.

I just know what he said.

Dr. Myers, welcome back.

My definition of fundamentalism is based on what you get by plugging "define:fundamentalism" into Google. There is an obvious range there, and I admit to choosing a broader reading of the term. The doctrine he seems to be advancing is scientism, the idea that scientific testing is the only way to know anything at all.

The intolerance is not (or at least not just) an issue of his speaking out against religion. It's the insults aimed at anyone who won't join him on the warpath. According to Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould wrote an entire book on the relation between science and religion but did not "give it a moment's thought." Agnostics are maligned for not accepting standard Popperian limits on the practice of science. People who disagree with his religious views but agree with his scientific ones are accused of political expediency in rejecting his view that the important war is the one against religious faith.

I dare say that his comparison between providing a religious upbringing and child abuse is fairly intolerant as well. No, he doesn't call for criminal penalties for that sort of child abuse, but imposing moral standards (or theological beliefs) on someone else's children (which Dawkins does endorse in his approving quotation from Nicholas Humphrey's speech, p.326) would seem to define intolerance.

He has valid points in that chapter, and throughout the book. Children should not be labeled by their parents' religious beliefs, and child sacrifice or female genital mutilation are both very bad, and should be stamped out.

It is the leap from the conclusion that some religious beliefs are harmful to the claim that they are all harmful is the stretch.

The doctrine he seems to be advancing is scientism, the idea that scientific testing is the only way to know anything at all.

Is that an objection? I catch people complaining about that all the time, but I've never seen one give me an alternative way of knowing something.
I still don't know where you think tolerance lies. Rocks of Ages was a lousy book, in my opinion; are we not supposed to state our opinions?
Does your disagreement with Dawkins on whether religious indoctrination is abuse constitute intolerance, too? You seem to have stretched the definition of intolerance to include strongly stated disagreement, you see. I'd call Lester Maddox and the KKK intolerant, but I don't see anything that suggests Dawkins belongs in the same category.
I think a similar stretching of categories is going on when you try to argue with Dawkins' claim that all religion is harming after talking about child sacrifice and mutilation. When Dawkins says all religious beliefs are harmful, he is not arguing that all religious people want to butcher their children -- he's saying that religion is a poor way of thinking, and therefore inducing people to engage in it is harmful to their minds. I don't disagree with that at all, even while recognizing that the religious can be good people (kind to children, even!).

Josh,

"Agnostics are maligned for not accepting standard Popperian limits on the practice of science."

Is that a typo? I thought agnostics were maligned because they DID accept the Popperian limits on science.

Craig: yes, I mixed up who I was talking about. Dawkins doesn't accept standard Popperian limits.

Dr. Myers: I know I love Ms. TfK even though I lack a love-o-meter. I know what I think of the White Stripes even though my aesthetic sensibility isn't falsifiable. I know that I should drive on the right even though I know that's totally arbitrary. Some of these are cultural norms, others are subjective knowledge. None are scientific.

My issue with Dawkins' treatment of Gould is not that he states a disagreement. Otherwise I'd be intolerant in writing my response, and all of the commenters involved would be too, and the whole concept would be incoherent.

My beef is that he treats those who disagree with him as if they are stupid simply by virtue of disagreeing. He writes a whole book about how God is a scientific hypothesis without mentioning Popper. People who advance serious, thoughtful arguments about why theism isn't subject to scientific testing are treated as if they secretly believe what Dawkins does, and are either too stupid (Gould) or too politically cowardly to come out and say it (the "Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists"). That inability to even recognize thoughtful dissent as having any possible basis strikes me as inherently intolerant and fundamentalist.

Dawkins is careful in his discussion of child abuse and religion not to use the widest possible brush, but that doesn't mean it isn't too broad. He certainly doesn't restrict religious child abuse to mutilation and sacrifice. Teaching children that hell exists is described as worse than some forms of sexual abuse. But that seems iffy to me.

Any time an adult has sex with a child, it is sexual abuse. Always. Is it abuse every time a child is told about hell? Or only sometimes, when a child is particularly impressionable?

Other Sciencebloggers have pointed out that children are funny. Even without being told anything at all, they believe that monsters are hiding around corners. They are as likely to be afraid of dragons or orcs after reading Tolkien as they are to fear Hell after reading Revelation. Shall we regard Tolkien as potentially child abuse also?

Religion, like other forms of fanaticism, can be harmful. It can also be helpful. I take that to mean that religion is not the problem. The problem is fanaticism and absolutism. His chapter on why we ought to care about what other people believe has a long recitation of the evils that religious people have committed, but it seems to me that this is no more coherent a case against religion than the existence of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. is an argument for religion.

It seems to me that there are bad forms of religious thinking and there are good (or at least neutral) forms. I want to fight against the bad forms, and could care less about the good forms. The good forms respect other people's beliefs and when they attempt to influence society, translate their personal religious views into terms that we can all appreciate on the basis of intersubjective reality. Dr. King and KCFS Board member Rev. Phenix would be examples of the latter.

And to tar them for the sins of Fred Phelps or ancient Incans seems intolerant to me.