But Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate.this is the whole (weak) point of Eagleton's criticism. Dawkins was mean to Eagleton's buddies, and Eagleton doesn't like to be reminded that he -- and many others -- spent a lot of time putting massive intellectual effort in what, essentially, is fiction. the catch is, they think/thought/may have thought it wasn't fiction.
He sensed that his account would end any intellectually credible idea of divine creation, and he wanted to break belief without harming the believer, particularly his wife, Emma, whom he loved devotedly and with whom he had shared, before he sat down to write, a private tragedy that seemed tolerable to her only through faith. The problem he faced was also a rhetorical one: how to say something that had never been said before in a way that made it sound like something everybody had always known—how to make an idea potentially scary and subversive sound as sane and straightforward as he believed it to be.Dawkins, presumably, looks on Darwin as a coward who wasn't man enough to shove the truth down people's throats in manly, scientific fashion. And I expect if Darwin had posted an AskMe question about his wife, the Mini-Dawkinses around here would have chorused "If she's dumb enough to need a crutch like religion, you have nothing in common—divorce the bitch!"
You've criticized the idea of the afterlife. What do you see as the problem with a terminally ill cancer patient believing in an afterlife?Such arrogance!
Oh, no problem at all. I would never wish to disabuse or disillusion somebody who believed that. I care about what's true for myself, but I don't want to go around telling people who are afraid of dying that their hopes are unreal.
If I could have a word with a would-be suicide bomber or plane hijacker who thinks he's going to paradise, I would like to disabuse him.
"Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.""Even moderate religious views, he insists, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism."
Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.I wonder if the New Atheists are so stupid that they don't realize that they are being played for such rank political purposes, or just so impractically idealistic to care?
"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"
If I say "Wow, what an overwhelming spiritual experience!" it makes no sense for you to reply "No it wasn't, you misinterpreted that experience as being of a spiritual nature" any more than it makes sense to claim I somehow misinterpreted my experience when I say "Wow, this water tasts salty." If you don't believe my reported experience, all you can say is "You really had no such experience, you're pulling my leg." The descriptive terms used to report primary experience are not challengeable, except on the grounds of untruth.The problem with relying on this kind of evidence for non-philosophical discourse is that it is not externally verifiable. You can (and should) describe your experiences in whatever way you wish. What factual conclusions you draw from that, if any, are entirely up for debate. Put another way, you can say "that water tasted salty" all you like, that's an experience. Once you step beyond it to a statement of fact ("that water is salty", an argument you didn't make but many do), all of the machinery of the scientific process now comes to bear on that statement.
Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. Such tutelage is self-imposed if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another.Considering this, it at first seems odd that Kant's most famous work is the "Critique of Pure Reason," in which he finds it necessary to "annul knowledge in order to make room for faith." But the basic idea, I think, is to draw limits to the domains of both faith & reason so that each does what it does best & neither interferes with the other. In my opinion, we continue to ignore such lessons at our peril.
« Older SF writers only use six words.... | Erik Mongrain... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
My name is Richard Dawkins, my book is a bestseller.
posted by matkline at 12:27 AM on October 25, 2006