Richard Dawkins, the champion of logic and reason, fails Logic 101
CharlasLet's Talk Religion
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1nathanielcampbell
So Richard Dawkins decided to celebrate Eid by tweeting:
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.I will let The Guardian's commentator do the rest:
Most on Twitter engaged with his logic on its own terms, pointing out that he himself had earned fewer Nobel prizes then every single Muslim who has, that more Muslim Premier League players had scored more goals than all Nobel prizewinners put together, that Hilary Mantel had sold more books than someone who had sold none. All statements as valid and as nonsensical and as inconclusive as his original tweet.
To wearily engage with his logic briefly: yes, it is technically true that fewer Muslims (10) than Trinity College Cambridge members (32) have won Nobel prizes. But insert pretty much any other group of people instead of "Muslims", and the statement would be true. You are comparing a specialised academic institution to an arbitrarily chosen group of people. Go on. Try it. All the world's Chinese, all the world's Indians, all the world's lefthanded people, all the world's cyclists.
2theoria
I think the test of the assertion is empirical, not logical. The Guardian author could have just left it as "offensive," since that is that she intends to convey.
3nathanielcampbell
And it takes a peculiar intransigence not to perceive that Dawkins meant the empirically-true statement to be an indictment of the Islamic world for being anti-intellectual. The problem, of course, is that the comparison is logically useless, unless Dawkins is also indicting any and all groups of people that have earned fewer than 32 Nobel Prizes.
Dawkins is emeritus of New College, Oxford. According to Oxford's own accounting, New College has only had one Nobel winner (in 1932, for literature).
So let's try this: Muslims have won ten times as many Nobels as has Dawkins' college. But it did have some good times in the Middle Ages.*
(We'll set aside, for the moment, the fact that for many decades, the Nobel committee was biased against people who weren't western men.)
-----------
*New College was founded in 1379.
Dawkins is emeritus of New College, Oxford. According to Oxford's own accounting, New College has only had one Nobel winner (in 1932, for literature).
So let's try this: Muslims have won ten times as many Nobels as has Dawkins' college. But it did have some good times in the Middle Ages.*
(We'll set aside, for the moment, the fact that for many decades, the Nobel committee was biased against people who weren't western men.)
-----------
*New College was founded in 1379.
4theoria
(We'll set aside, for the moment, the fact that for many decades, the Nobel committee was biased against people who weren't western men.)
This is the best response to Dawkins. Again, empirically, his argument is correct. And you've provided one plausible explanation of it.
This is the best response to Dawkins. Again, empirically, his argument is correct. And you've provided one plausible explanation of it.
5LolaWalser
What theoria said. Dawkins' assertion is factually true, and what he was driving at--Islamist/fundamentalist intolerance for anti-religious activities such as science--doesn't depend on "logically" applying the assertion to any arbitrary group (even less to single individuals-now THAT is dumb!)
For someone who makes a living parsing nuances of texts and contexts, that's a very poor reading, nathaniel. But the point of the thread was to slam a lippy atheist, was it not.
By the way, the more one reads about Islam and science in the Middle Ages (if it is proper to call it "science" at all), the less it becomes clear just how many or involved the Muslims were. So many key figures turn out to have been converts from Judaism and Christianity it's not even funny.
For someone who makes a living parsing nuances of texts and contexts, that's a very poor reading, nathaniel. But the point of the thread was to slam a lippy atheist, was it not.
By the way, the more one reads about Islam and science in the Middle Ages (if it is proper to call it "science" at all), the less it becomes clear just how many or involved the Muslims were. So many key figures turn out to have been converts from Judaism and Christianity it's not even funny.
7fearless2012
Re: 6 Good one.
I don't see what Dawkins gets out of pushing some university's credentials in somebody else's face.
I don't see what Dawkins gets out of pushing some university's credentials in somebody else's face.
8nathanielcampbell
>5 LolaWalser:: "For someone who makes a living parsing nuances of texts and contexts, that's a very poor reading, nathaniel. But the point of the thread was to slam a lippy atheist, was it not."
I'll 'fess up to that one. In retrospect, the thread title and the OP do ring of JGL53's modus operandi, do they not?
As for what you say about medieval Islamic science: I have not the competency to say one way or the other. What little I do know about medieval Islamic thought is in its neo-platonist philosophers, most of whom I believe were in fact "cradle Muslims", if we want to call them that -- though they were often working closely (at least in the 9th and 10th centuries under the Abbasids) with remnant pockets of Nestorian Christians in Persia and even with some isolated communities of hold-out Late Antique neoplatonists (i.e. pagans rather than Christians) in Asia Minor!
I'll 'fess up to that one. In retrospect, the thread title and the OP do ring of JGL53's modus operandi, do they not?
As for what you say about medieval Islamic science: I have not the competency to say one way or the other. What little I do know about medieval Islamic thought is in its neo-platonist philosophers, most of whom I believe were in fact "cradle Muslims", if we want to call them that -- though they were often working closely (at least in the 9th and 10th centuries under the Abbasids) with remnant pockets of Nestorian Christians in Persia and even with some isolated communities of hold-out Late Antique neoplatonists (i.e. pagans rather than Christians) in Asia Minor!
9John5918
It's good that Dawkins has acknowledged the debt that modern western civilisation owes to Islam for its earlier role in science and other areas.
10timspalding
I'm going to split the difference here:
We'll set aside, for the moment, the fact that for many decades, the Nobel committee was biased against people who weren't western men
This explanation is certainly appealing—Lola clearly likes it. It feels tolerant to image that Islamic science was forging ahead, making major new discoveries, between, say, 1901, when the Prize was first given out, and some recent date when the committee stopped being biased.
But this is simply not the case. If Muslims had been racking up major scientific discoveries in this period, it's certainly possible that the Nobel Committee in these early years wouldn't have snubbed them. But they weren't and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. Islamic science went into serious decline at the end of the medieval period, and was a shadow of its former glory, struggling to make sense of more recent scientific progress, in 1901. Measured by objective standards, like articles and degrees, science in Islamic lands continues to languish today. Why is the sort of thing that can't be covered in a tweet.
That said, Dawkins is being his usual bigoted self. Islam is hardly against science. Islamic civilization was making major scientific discoveries in many fields when Dawkin's ancestors were rubbing butter in their hair and divining the future by sticking a dagger in the back of a slave and watching him twitch to death. Even so, English people and English religion are not inherently anti-science.
Ultimately, Dawkins' is correct much as one would be correct to say there's only been one black chess player to make it to the top 1,000 or so players. But facts have contexts and they have uses. And when David Duke or Richard Dawkins repeats this fact as if it was vitally important and illustrative of a deeper truth, well, it acquires a certain pungency.
We'll set aside, for the moment, the fact that for many decades, the Nobel committee was biased against people who weren't western men
This explanation is certainly appealing—Lola clearly likes it. It feels tolerant to image that Islamic science was forging ahead, making major new discoveries, between, say, 1901, when the Prize was first given out, and some recent date when the committee stopped being biased.
But this is simply not the case. If Muslims had been racking up major scientific discoveries in this period, it's certainly possible that the Nobel Committee in these early years wouldn't have snubbed them. But they weren't and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. Islamic science went into serious decline at the end of the medieval period, and was a shadow of its former glory, struggling to make sense of more recent scientific progress, in 1901. Measured by objective standards, like articles and degrees, science in Islamic lands continues to languish today. Why is the sort of thing that can't be covered in a tweet.
That said, Dawkins is being his usual bigoted self. Islam is hardly against science. Islamic civilization was making major scientific discoveries in many fields when Dawkin's ancestors were rubbing butter in their hair and divining the future by sticking a dagger in the back of a slave and watching him twitch to death. Even so, English people and English religion are not inherently anti-science.
Ultimately, Dawkins' is correct much as one would be correct to say there's only been one black chess player to make it to the top 1,000 or so players. But facts have contexts and they have uses. And when David Duke or Richard Dawkins repeats this fact as if it was vitally important and illustrative of a deeper truth, well, it acquires a certain pungency.
11nathanielcampbell
>10 timspalding:: "But this is simply not the case. If Muslims had been racking up major scientific discoveries in this period, it's certainly possible that the Nobel Committee in these early years wouldn't have snubbed them. But they weren't and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. Islamic science went into serious decline at the end of the medieval period, and was a shadow of its former glory, struggling to make sense of more recent scientific progress, in 1901."
That's certainly true, and from that perspective, the kernel concept that major sections of the Islamic world have been on a reactionary and regressive bender for the last few centuries is self-evident.
On the other hand, as Bernard Lewis has amply tried to explain to us ignorant westerners, our colonialism was a major factor in producing that corrosive reactionary stance. But I don't suppose Dawkins would want to admit his country's complicity, now would he?
That's certainly true, and from that perspective, the kernel concept that major sections of the Islamic world have been on a reactionary and regressive bender for the last few centuries is self-evident.
On the other hand, as Bernard Lewis has amply tried to explain to us ignorant westerners, our colonialism was a major factor in producing that corrosive reactionary stance. But I don't suppose Dawkins would want to admit his country's complicity, now would he?
12southernbooklady
>11 nathanielcampbell: But I don't suppose Dawkins would want to admit his country's complicity, now would he?
Actually, I think he would. Insofar as he seems to regard ideas as "memes" that operate along the same lines as any other entity statistically inclined to either reproduce or go extinct, I think "colonialism" would be just another version of this. Like "religion" or "patriotism" or any number of other memes.
Actually, I think he would. Insofar as he seems to regard ideas as "memes" that operate along the same lines as any other entity statistically inclined to either reproduce or go extinct, I think "colonialism" would be just another version of this. Like "religion" or "patriotism" or any number of other memes.
13nathanielcampbell
>12 southernbooklady:: Yet, the fact that Trinity College, Cambridge has 32 Nobels to its credit is in many ways a direct result of the western hegemony in the 19th and 20th centuries that colonialism created. That is, colonialism fostered the socio-economic conditions that allowed Trinity College, Cambridge to be one of the world's premier sites of intellectual excellence in the 20th century.
14southernbooklady
>13 nathanielcampbell: I'm not sure how that contradicts what I suggested, Nathan.
15nathanielcampbell
>14 southernbooklady:: Another of my frequent criticism of Dawkins is his failure to acknowledge that memes like religion can have positive effects in addition to the negative effects he harps on. For example: the university he was tenured at, as well as the university he lauds in his tweet, were both religious foundations. Yet, you don't ever see him acknowledging that, do you?
Similarly here: the social and historical circumstances that have led to the disparity in Nobel winners are vastly more complex than Dawkins seems to want to admit. Even granting that a tweet is not a vehicle designed for complexity and nuance (and setting aside that larger discussion, to wit, of the deleterious effects of the sound-byte/tweet-byte culture on intellectual discourse), we haven't seen Dawkins come out and acknowledge those complexities or nuances.
He plays a smash-and-grab game in which his "brilliance" as a scientist is assumed to excuse him from making idiotically reductive remarks. When religious figures use his same rhetorical tactics, Dawkins ridicules them for it. Why, then, does he engage in the very brutish and authortiative behavior for which he censures others?
Similarly here: the social and historical circumstances that have led to the disparity in Nobel winners are vastly more complex than Dawkins seems to want to admit. Even granting that a tweet is not a vehicle designed for complexity and nuance (and setting aside that larger discussion, to wit, of the deleterious effects of the sound-byte/tweet-byte culture on intellectual discourse), we haven't seen Dawkins come out and acknowledge those complexities or nuances.
He plays a smash-and-grab game in which his "brilliance" as a scientist is assumed to excuse him from making idiotically reductive remarks. When religious figures use his same rhetorical tactics, Dawkins ridicules them for it. Why, then, does he engage in the very brutish and authortiative behavior for which he censures others?
16southernbooklady
Right. He's a gadfly and organized religion is his bete noir. In many ways he's pushing a paradigm-shift to view life, the universe and everything as "not divine." And he's saying that religion itself--as opposed to any particular version of it--might be doing more harm than good.
I suppose I'm more comfortable around radicalism than many people. I see the value of questioning basic assumptions and founding principles. Such questions always sound outrageous and even mad when they are first asked. They are rarely "polite" or inclined towards accommodation.
But they do ask questions worth considering--if only because in taking them seriously enough to answering them you either have your position strengthened and confirmed, or evolve into something new.
I suppose I'm more comfortable around radicalism than many people. I see the value of questioning basic assumptions and founding principles. Such questions always sound outrageous and even mad when they are first asked. They are rarely "polite" or inclined towards accommodation.
But they do ask questions worth considering--if only because in taking them seriously enough to answering them you either have your position strengthened and confirmed, or evolve into something new.
17LolaWalser
This explanation is certainly appealing—Lola clearly likes it.
???
I'm sure it's not important, but if you do mean me, I have neither said nor implied anything whatsoever about Nobels or bias or men of any kind.
Dawkins to Muslims: EPIC FAIL at science {unspoken assumption: because of religion}! And that makes you look stupid and ass-backward!
Let's now dissect this in, say, two threads of four hundred posts each. ;)
TwitterThing...
???
I'm sure it's not important, but if you do mean me, I have neither said nor implied anything whatsoever about Nobels or bias or men of any kind.
Dawkins to Muslims: EPIC FAIL at science {unspoken assumption: because of religion}! And that makes you look stupid and ass-backward!
Let's now dissect this in, say, two threads of four hundred posts each. ;)
TwitterThing...
18nathanielcampbell
>17 LolaWalser:: In post 4, theoria indicated that the cultural biases of the Nobel committee (discussion of which has expanded in the interim into a the positive and negative effects of colonialism) were "the best response to Dawkins".
You opened your post 5 by saying, "What theoria said."
For most readers, that is to be taken as your endorsement of the idea that cultural bias may have been / still be a factor in the disproportion of western to Islamic Nobel winners.
ETA: In hindsight, perhaps your agreement was, rather, with theoria's post 2, which addressed the empirical factualness of Dawkins' claim. If so, I apologize for misunderstanding.
You opened your post 5 by saying, "What theoria said."
For most readers, that is to be taken as your endorsement of the idea that cultural bias may have been / still be a factor in the disproportion of western to Islamic Nobel winners.
ETA: In hindsight, perhaps your agreement was, rather, with theoria's post 2, which addressed the empirical factualness of Dawkins' claim. If so, I apologize for misunderstanding.
19LolaWalser
#18
That's right. I'd thought #5 is clear enough.
As for the idea that science Nobels are biased against Muslims--it's so ridiculous it hardly needs addressing. It presupposes that Nobel-standard science exists in Islamic countries. It does not.
That's right. I'd thought #5 is clear enough.
As for the idea that science Nobels are biased against Muslims--it's so ridiculous it hardly needs addressing. It presupposes that Nobel-standard science exists in Islamic countries. It does not.
20theoria
To twitterthing . . . not all Nobels are in "science": see literature, peace, and economics.
21LolaWalser
What, they give NOBELS out for stuff other than science?! Talk about cheapening value... :)
22timspalding
He plays a smash-and-grab game in which his "brilliance" as a scientist is assumed to excuse him from making idiotically reductive remarks. When religious figures use his same rhetorical tactics, Dawkins ridicules them for it. Why, then, does he engage in the very brutish and authortiative behavior for which he censures others?
Right. It's common to scientists generally. Being great at science doesn't make you an all-around intellectual king. This was never true, but it's even less true now, when science is so specialized. What does Dawkins know about culture and religion? Very little, as he demonstrates again and again. Why his opinions on the topic are more respected than the fundamentalist who think he's a scientist without knowing much science is beyond me.
I'm sure it's not important, but if you do mean me, I have neither said nor implied anything whatsoever about Nobels or bias or men of any kind.
Right, confusion over your "what theoria said" and which message it referred to. Apologies for misattribution.
As for the idea that science Nobels are biased against Muslims--it's so ridiculous it hardly needs addressing. It presupposes that Nobel-standard science exists in Islamic countries. It does not.
Okay, I'll switch around on that a bit. There were definitely some non-western advances that got short shrift.
I can't think of an example after 1901—perhaps someone can. But the Japanese made progress on anesthesia in the 19th century that was overlooked by western medicine. It so happens I'm up on this because my father is doing a narrative genealogy of our family and--by funny luck--we are related to all but one of the many US claimants to the discovery/perfection of vapor anesthesia, but not to the Japanese ones. The (locally) famous "Ether Monument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_Monument ) on Boston Common avoids choosing sides, and even casts a moor in the role of the ether-giver, as a nod to medieval Islamic science's progress, but it doesn't mention the Japanese contribution. Perhaps they didn't know. But recognition for scientific advancement has been completely without racism--or sexism.
Right. It's common to scientists generally. Being great at science doesn't make you an all-around intellectual king. This was never true, but it's even less true now, when science is so specialized. What does Dawkins know about culture and religion? Very little, as he demonstrates again and again. Why his opinions on the topic are more respected than the fundamentalist who think he's a scientist without knowing much science is beyond me.
I'm sure it's not important, but if you do mean me, I have neither said nor implied anything whatsoever about Nobels or bias or men of any kind.
Right, confusion over your "what theoria said" and which message it referred to. Apologies for misattribution.
As for the idea that science Nobels are biased against Muslims--it's so ridiculous it hardly needs addressing. It presupposes that Nobel-standard science exists in Islamic countries. It does not.
Okay, I'll switch around on that a bit. There were definitely some non-western advances that got short shrift.
I can't think of an example after 1901—perhaps someone can. But the Japanese made progress on anesthesia in the 19th century that was overlooked by western medicine. It so happens I'm up on this because my father is doing a narrative genealogy of our family and--by funny luck--we are related to all but one of the many US claimants to the discovery/perfection of vapor anesthesia, but not to the Japanese ones. The (locally) famous "Ether Monument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_Monument ) on Boston Common avoids choosing sides, and even casts a moor in the role of the ether-giver, as a nod to medieval Islamic science's progress, but it doesn't mention the Japanese contribution. Perhaps they didn't know. But recognition for scientific advancement has been completely without racism--or sexism.
23nathanielcampbell
>22 timspalding:: "It's common to scientists generally."
As the spouse of a scientist, I'm calling foul on your faulty generalization. Many scientists are quite comfortable acknowledging the limits of their expertise -- of course, they're the ones that nobody writes newspaper stories about, so there you go.
As the spouse of a scientist, I'm calling foul on your faulty generalization. Many scientists are quite comfortable acknowledging the limits of their expertise -- of course, they're the ones that nobody writes newspaper stories about, so there you go.
24timspalding
Yeah, fair enough. It's definitely not an isolated phenomenon, though. And I bet your wife periodically tells you she's right because she investigates real things and you don't. :)
25nathanielcampbell
>24 timspalding:: The more frequent retort is along the lines of, "God help us when your work becomes practical!" (In reference to my focus on apocalypticism.)
26John5918
>16 southernbooklady: I suppose I'm more comfortable around radicalism than many people. I see the value of questioning basic assumptions and founding principles. Such questions always sound outrageous and even mad when they are first asked.
Might be worth noting that there's plenty of radicalism within religion too, and plenty of religious people who do question the basic assumptions and founding principles. And yes, they often sound outrageous and even mad. Lots of people thought Jesus was mad, and Francis of Assisi was certainly a prime candidate.
But they do ask questions worth considering--if only because in taking them seriously enough to answering them you either have your position strengthened and confirmed, or evolve into something new.
Agreed. Radical questioning of religion does not automatically lead to atheism; often it leads to confirming and strengthening one's position and evolving into something new.
Might be worth noting that there's plenty of radicalism within religion too, and plenty of religious people who do question the basic assumptions and founding principles. And yes, they often sound outrageous and even mad. Lots of people thought Jesus was mad, and Francis of Assisi was certainly a prime candidate.
But they do ask questions worth considering--if only because in taking them seriously enough to answering them you either have your position strengthened and confirmed, or evolve into something new.
Agreed. Radical questioning of religion does not automatically lead to atheism; often it leads to confirming and strengthening one's position and evolving into something new.
27LolaWalser
Well, the period after 1901 would be the one to discuss, if we are talking about bias in awarding Nobels.
The (science) Nobels are a good (probably best) indicator of where there is a certain type of society--rich and educated enough to support a research industry large enough to supply a steady stream of discovery and innovation.
A few individual geniuses aren't enough, even money isn't enough. You need the infrastructure, the schools, teachers and tools, the students, a pool of talent.
Clearly Muslims don't lack brains more than anyone else, and some even have money. So, something else is missing.
The (science) Nobels are a good (probably best) indicator of where there is a certain type of society--rich and educated enough to support a research industry large enough to supply a steady stream of discovery and innovation.
A few individual geniuses aren't enough, even money isn't enough. You need the infrastructure, the schools, teachers and tools, the students, a pool of talent.
Clearly Muslims don't lack brains more than anyone else, and some even have money. So, something else is missing.
28nathanielcampbell
>27 LolaWalser:: As much as I hate such contra-factuals...
If the Siege of Vienna had gone the other way in 1529 (or perhaps the later Battle of Viena in 1683), it's entirely possible that the Nobel Prizes would be named after Suleiman the Magnificent and the gala for their awarding every year would be held in Istanbul.
If the Siege of Vienna had gone the other way in 1529 (or perhaps the later Battle of Viena in 1683), it's entirely possible that the Nobel Prizes would be named after Suleiman the Magnificent and the gala for their awarding every year would be held in Istanbul.
29BruceCoulson
South America only has 5 Nobel Prizes in science, if I counted correctly.
So, Trinity College is also superior to Latin America.
So, Trinity College is also superior to Latin America.
30nathanielcampbell
>29 BruceCoulson:: You know why, don't you? Latin America is full of those hateful enemies of science, the Catholics! :-)
31Arctic-Stranger
Blacks have only won 15 Nobel prizes. Let's see Dawkins take THAT to the twitterverse.
33jburlinson
If this LT thread is any indicator, Dawkins accomplished his tweet goal.
34BruceCoulson
It would depend, I suppose, on what his goal was.
35timspalding
How many black South-American Muslims?
36Arctic-Stranger
"Blacks" are not a religion, but Dawkins is comparing one set of people with another. If he compares English professors with Muslims, he comes across as snarky or heroic. If he did the comparison between English professors and blacks, he would come across as a bigot.
37Jesse_wiedinmyer
If he compares English professors to accountants?
38timspalding
There should be a Nobel prize in accounting.
39Jesse_wiedinmyer
Well, given that they've already got the fake econ Nobel, why not?
40prosfilaes
#22: Right. It's common to scientists generally. Being great at science doesn't make you an all-around intellectual king.
It seems to be common to people in general. It's amazing what a little learning will get you sometimes. Heck, as you can see from the names below, it's amazing what no learning will get you sometimes.
Why his opinions on the topic are more respected than the fundamentalist who think he's a scientist without knowing much science is beyond me.
They both seem to have a fairly narrow but very respectful audiences. I think you're overstating the case by talking about the "fundamentalist" and "science"; if you're looking for people talking out of their asses about Islam, there are a heck of a lot of preachers and journalists out there with no training on the subject prattling on to a much larger audience, and a much more influential one, then Dawkins.
Dawkins has a complete education from Oxford, which puts him, in formal eduction on the subject, far ahead of Glenn Beck (completed high school) and Rush Limbaugh (dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University*). How many sociologists or scholars of religion do we have advising us on Islam and Muslims in the public square?
* Not to be confused with the more prestigious Southwest Missouri State University, now known as Missouri State University.
But the Japanese made progress on anesthesia in the 19th century that was overlooked by western medicine.
I think it's much more likely to be a failure of inter-cultural communication then simple racism. A scholar can know only so many languages, follow so many journals. The main way we get high-speed worldwide knowledge transfer is by each discipline picking one or two languages that its specialists must know and with major journals publishing from and to a worldwide audience. The fact the language tends to be English is not value-neutral of course, but the language of choice has quite an inertia.
Classics is known as a multilingual discipline. But however much Albanian, Basque and Maltese are languages of lands within the sphere of study, a classics scholar choosing to publish in them would likely be ignored by his colleagues.
It seems to be common to people in general. It's amazing what a little learning will get you sometimes. Heck, as you can see from the names below, it's amazing what no learning will get you sometimes.
Why his opinions on the topic are more respected than the fundamentalist who think he's a scientist without knowing much science is beyond me.
They both seem to have a fairly narrow but very respectful audiences. I think you're overstating the case by talking about the "fundamentalist" and "science"; if you're looking for people talking out of their asses about Islam, there are a heck of a lot of preachers and journalists out there with no training on the subject prattling on to a much larger audience, and a much more influential one, then Dawkins.
Dawkins has a complete education from Oxford, which puts him, in formal eduction on the subject, far ahead of Glenn Beck (completed high school) and Rush Limbaugh (dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University*). How many sociologists or scholars of religion do we have advising us on Islam and Muslims in the public square?
* Not to be confused with the more prestigious Southwest Missouri State University, now known as Missouri State University.
But the Japanese made progress on anesthesia in the 19th century that was overlooked by western medicine.
I think it's much more likely to be a failure of inter-cultural communication then simple racism. A scholar can know only so many languages, follow so many journals. The main way we get high-speed worldwide knowledge transfer is by each discipline picking one or two languages that its specialists must know and with major journals publishing from and to a worldwide audience. The fact the language tends to be English is not value-neutral of course, but the language of choice has quite an inertia.
Classics is known as a multilingual discipline. But however much Albanian, Basque and Maltese are languages of lands within the sphere of study, a classics scholar choosing to publish in them would likely be ignored by his colleagues.
41RickHarsch
Despite the likelihood that Basques were the first seafaring whalers, and thus the likelihood of many a good Basque yarn, and thus the attraction the language should hold for the multi-literaryists...
(To the OPoint: should twitter not be ignored?)
(To the OPoint: should twitter not be ignored?)
43timspalding
Richard Dawkins Pedophilia Remarks Provoke Outrage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.ht...
Er, what?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.ht...
Er, what?
44Jesse_wiedinmyer
There's a whole 'nother thread already started on the topic.
45Tid
44
Where? This is all I've got...
Science Fiction Fans : September 2013 Reading 47 unread / 47 iansales, Today 9:57am
Let's Talk Religion : Undogmatic Christianity 8 unread / 8 johnthefireman, Today 6:45am
Science Fiction Fans : Online survey for a research study on LibraryThing and its role in communities 39 unread / 39 DugsBooks, Today 5:22am
Writer-readers : Looking for police resources 5 unread / 5 LauraKCurtis, Today 3:16am
Let's Talk Religion : Syncretism -- as if it was a bad thing 3 unread / 44 timspalding, Today 2:45am
Crambo! : I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "prism." 2 unread / 13 justjim, Today 2:34am
Let's Talk Religion : Did Zeus Exist? 15 unread / 41 rrp, Today 2:26am
Science Fiction Fans : Does anyone like Piers Anthony? 51 unread / 51 HoldenCarver, Yesterday 11:56pm
Let's Talk Religion : Richard Dawkins, the champion of logic and reason, fails Logic 101 44 Jesse_wiedinmyer, Yesterday 10:52pm
Writer-readers : Research question 6 unread / 6 lilithcat, Yesterday 10:18pm
Girlybooks : A "Wild" coincidence! 9 unread / 9 rebeccanyc, Yesterday 9:46pm
Let's Talk Religion : Limits of Expression? 312 theoria, Yesterday 4:49am
Science Fiction Fans : Resistance if futile! All hail the Hypnotoad! SF on TV and streaming 2013 128 unread / 128 wifilibrarian, Yesterday 2:03am
Writer-readers : Hi, I'm new here. 6 unread / 6 LeeJCollins, Monday 10:30pm
Where? This is all I've got...
Science Fiction Fans : September 2013 Reading 47 unread / 47 iansales, Today 9:57am
Let's Talk Religion : Undogmatic Christianity 8 unread / 8 johnthefireman, Today 6:45am
Science Fiction Fans : Online survey for a research study on LibraryThing and its role in communities 39 unread / 39 DugsBooks, Today 5:22am
Writer-readers : Looking for police resources 5 unread / 5 LauraKCurtis, Today 3:16am
Let's Talk Religion : Syncretism -- as if it was a bad thing 3 unread / 44 timspalding, Today 2:45am
Crambo! : I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "prism." 2 unread / 13 justjim, Today 2:34am
Let's Talk Religion : Did Zeus Exist? 15 unread / 41 rrp, Today 2:26am
Science Fiction Fans : Does anyone like Piers Anthony? 51 unread / 51 HoldenCarver, Yesterday 11:56pm
Let's Talk Religion : Richard Dawkins, the champion of logic and reason, fails Logic 101 44 Jesse_wiedinmyer, Yesterday 10:52pm
Writer-readers : Research question 6 unread / 6 lilithcat, Yesterday 10:18pm
Girlybooks : A "Wild" coincidence! 9 unread / 9 rebeccanyc, Yesterday 9:46pm
Let's Talk Religion : Limits of Expression? 312 theoria, Yesterday 4:49am
Science Fiction Fans : Resistance if futile! All hail the Hypnotoad! SF on TV and streaming 2013 128 unread / 128 wifilibrarian, Yesterday 2:03am
Writer-readers : Hi, I'm new here. 6 unread / 6 LeeJCollins, Monday 10:30pm
46John5918
>43 timspalding: I think Dawkins chooses a poor example. Clearly putting your hand down a child's shorts is inappropriate and illegal, whether today or a few decades ago. But I think I can see what he is getting at. I wouldn't use Dawkins' term "mild paedophilia", as I think all paedophilia is something to be avoided. However there is no doubt that a lot of our male teachers, priests, scout leaders, sports coaches and youth club leaders were, well, a bit strange. You probably have to be a bit strange, maybe a bit immature, to want to spend your extra-curricular time with young boys and girls. Most of those slightly strange men never did anything inappropriate to us, but somehow we felt they were a bit odd. We made jokes about it.
We had one school chaplain who used to take groups of 16 year old boys to the opera and ballet up London, and then to a posh restaurant for dinner. I'll never forget seeing Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev dancing together, an opportunity I would never have had without that odd priest. A curate took me to see Jesus Christ Superstar in the West End. Both later "disappeared" suddenly amidst rumours about paedophilia, as did another school chaplain and a priest who worked on children's camps. A youth club leader probably liked young girls as well as young boys, but I have never heard that he actually did anything untoward, while he provided us with a youth club as well as taking care of the altar servers. It was considered normal for the sports teacher to come into the communal shower to ensure that every boy did actually wash himself, and to encourage those who didn't by hitting them with a sports shoe (corporal punishment was big in those days too, of course). We had one teacher who played on his weirdness, maintaining discipline in class with a stage whispered, "You know what I do to little boys..."
Nowadays many of them would not be allowed to work with children, or would not feel comfortable doing so with the possibility of a witch hunt against them. But without them we would have missed a whole lot of opportunities, which I think modern children probably are missing out on. There is a difference between criminal paedophilia and being mildly eccentric towards children. If that's what Dawkins is trying to say then (unusually!) I agree with him. If he really is implying that some "mild" paedophilia is acceptable, then I disagree with him.
We had one school chaplain who used to take groups of 16 year old boys to the opera and ballet up London, and then to a posh restaurant for dinner. I'll never forget seeing Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev dancing together, an opportunity I would never have had without that odd priest. A curate took me to see Jesus Christ Superstar in the West End. Both later "disappeared" suddenly amidst rumours about paedophilia, as did another school chaplain and a priest who worked on children's camps. A youth club leader probably liked young girls as well as young boys, but I have never heard that he actually did anything untoward, while he provided us with a youth club as well as taking care of the altar servers. It was considered normal for the sports teacher to come into the communal shower to ensure that every boy did actually wash himself, and to encourage those who didn't by hitting them with a sports shoe (corporal punishment was big in those days too, of course). We had one teacher who played on his weirdness, maintaining discipline in class with a stage whispered, "You know what I do to little boys..."
Nowadays many of them would not be allowed to work with children, or would not feel comfortable doing so with the possibility of a witch hunt against them. But without them we would have missed a whole lot of opportunities, which I think modern children probably are missing out on. There is a difference between criminal paedophilia and being mildly eccentric towards children. If that's what Dawkins is trying to say then (unusually!) I agree with him. If he really is implying that some "mild" paedophilia is acceptable, then I disagree with him.
47LolaWalser
Dawkins is very obviously a "child of the 1950s". He displayed a similar "tough-minded" attitude in the past, regarding sexism and other silly problems of the less privileged. It's not something that improves with age--and he is getting on.
#46
As far as one can tell from the article, he tried to separate what happened to him from paedophilia altogether--he doesn't call it "mild paedophilia". I think it's safe to assume he is not setting himself up as a champion of child abusers, whatever the inevitable commentary.
#46
As far as one can tell from the article, he tried to separate what happened to him from paedophilia altogether--he doesn't call it "mild paedophilia". I think it's safe to assume he is not setting himself up as a champion of child abusers, whatever the inevitable commentary.
48Arctic-Stranger
He is not setting himself up that way, but in fact he is condoning it. And that comes close to constituting abuse in and of itself.
If a congressman is (rightfully) excoriated for talking about "legitimate rape" then Dawkins should have worse treatment for condoning "legitimate" abuse.
If a congressman is (rightfully) excoriated for talking about "legitimate rape" then Dawkins should have worse treatment for condoning "legitimate" abuse.
49LolaWalser
Well, it's nice to see you being true to yourself and using even THIS to defend a creep more to your liking.
Dawkins absolutely deserves excoriating and he is not worse than your precious congressman. "Feeling up children isn't paedophilia" and "legitimate rape" sound equally imbecilic to me.
But you go on and tear that atheist apart, tiger. "Legitimately raped" women will stand in the back.
Dawkins absolutely deserves excoriating and he is not worse than your precious congressman. "Feeling up children isn't paedophilia" and "legitimate rape" sound equally imbecilic to me.
But you go on and tear that atheist apart, tiger. "Legitimately raped" women will stand in the back.
50Arctic-Stranger
I am not defending anyone. I think you read my post entirely wrong. There is no such thing as legitimate rape, and Todd Akins should be excoriated. He is not my precious congressman. I even donated to his opponent!
Did you not read the word "rightfully" in my post, or are you so eager to excoriate me, you don't need to read what I write?
Did you not read the word "rightfully" in my post, or are you so eager to excoriate me, you don't need to read what I write?
51prosfilaes
#48: If a congressman is (rightfully) excoriated for talking about "legitimate rape" then Dawkins should have worse treatment for condoning "legitimate" abuse.
I don't believe he ever used the word "legitimate". I think both the wording and the personal nature of the issue should come into play.
I don't believe he ever used the word "legitimate". I think both the wording and the personal nature of the issue should come into play.
52Arctic-Stranger
He said: “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”
Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
It is a bit apples and oranges--legitimate rape (which implies that some reports of a real rape are illegitimate--that some rapes aren't really rape) and nonharmful sexual abuse. But what he is doing is condoning the action, thus making it legitimate. I guess I should have spelled that out.
Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
It is a bit apples and oranges--legitimate rape (which implies that some reports of a real rape are illegitimate--that some rapes aren't really rape) and nonharmful sexual abuse. But what he is doing is condoning the action, thus making it legitimate. I guess I should have spelled that out.
53Jesse_wiedinmyer
I dunno. I've heard many people on these forums make almost exactly the same argument wrt slavery, etc. He's not condoning the behavior. The very fact that he's pointing out that the standards have changed goes to show that he doesn't condone the behavior.
54Arctic-Stranger
"Fondling never did any lasting harm."
"Slavery didn't do any lasting harm."
It does not work in either situation very well, does it?
"Slavery didn't do any lasting harm."
It does not work in either situation very well, does it?
55overlycriticalelisa
whether he is condoning or not, i don't think it's his place to speak for anyone else who experienced abuse at the hands of this man. maybe (and maybe not) it didn't do "lasting harm" for him, but to assume the same for others certainly isn't ok.
56prosfilaes
#55: i don't think it's his place to speak for anyone else who experienced abuse at the hands of this man.
I'd be more impressed if people who never met this man, who don't know the names of anyone other then Dawkins who was touched by him, weren't so quick to speak for them.
I'd be more impressed if people who never met this man, who don't know the names of anyone other then Dawkins who was touched by him, weren't so quick to speak for them.
57Arctic-Stranger
Victims of sexual abuse have the abuse perpetuated further by the demand for silence. "Don't tell anyone. This will be our secret!" and worse "No one will believe you. If you tell, something bad will happen to you." Or they do tell, and no one does believe them.
When I do groups, especially groups where some if not all the of the members have been sexually abused, we talk about confidentiality, but I do tell them, "Nothing that I say is confidential. You may not share what other group members say in group, but you can tell anyone anything that I say." I do that because many of them have adults who abuse them, and then swear them to secrecy. They need to know that I will be above board with them.
I don't think you mean to do it, but in the post above you are telling people not to speak for those who may not be able to speak for themselves. A teacher who fondles little boys is breaking almost every sense of decency possible. The boys many not be able to articulate that for a variety of reasons. But it is wrong.
Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying, but we do a disservice to countless abused children if we throw potshots at people who are attempting to bring this open, who are speaking for them.
When I do groups, especially groups where some if not all the of the members have been sexually abused, we talk about confidentiality, but I do tell them, "Nothing that I say is confidential. You may not share what other group members say in group, but you can tell anyone anything that I say." I do that because many of them have adults who abuse them, and then swear them to secrecy. They need to know that I will be above board with them.
I don't think you mean to do it, but in the post above you are telling people not to speak for those who may not be able to speak for themselves. A teacher who fondles little boys is breaking almost every sense of decency possible. The boys many not be able to articulate that for a variety of reasons. But it is wrong.
Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying, but we do a disservice to countless abused children if we throw potshots at people who are attempting to bring this open, who are speaking for them.
58prosfilaes
#57: in the post above you are telling people not to speak for those who may not be able to speak for themselves.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you can't silence someone who was there and then presume to speak for them. Even if survivors may not have the biggest picture, they do get first right to speak for what happened to them, to all of them.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you can't silence someone who was there and then presume to speak for them. Even if survivors may not have the biggest picture, they do get first right to speak for what happened to them, to all of them.
59prosfilaes
And Dawkins has a response to this: http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/9/11/child-abuse-a-misund...
60LolaWalser
He's not getting it. "Shouldn't judge by the standards of today" mon cul. Yes, we bloody well judge by the "standards of today", as we bloody well ought to. That's what makes today better than the fucking 1950s.
61Kuiperdolin
This is old news. He was already going on about that exact same thing in the mid-2000s, but then it was to make the case than the Church of England was worse than pedophilia so it was OK.
I guess some people always have to push their luck.
I guess some people always have to push their luck.
62JGL53
> 61
In any case Dawkins is laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe not in England or elsewhere, but in republican teabagger America that seems to be the only thing that counts.
So - the teabaggers should laude Dawkins as a case of great personal financial success - even if many liberals don't. But the baggers don't. And that's just not right. They shouldn't discriminate because he pushes evilution.
lol.
In any case Dawkins is laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe not in England or elsewhere, but in republican teabagger America that seems to be the only thing that counts.
So - the teabaggers should laude Dawkins as a case of great personal financial success - even if many liberals don't. But the baggers don't. And that's just not right. They shouldn't discriminate because he pushes evilution.
lol.
63margd
According to Assyriologist, Richard Dawkin's new book "Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide" is error-ridden in its account of flood stories, Gilgamesh, etc. A bit shocking that he didn't more carefully research this, his scientific credibility being the foundation for his criticisms of religion. Didn't check a research assistant's work?
George Heath-Whyte @GHeathWhyte | 12:15 PM · Sep 20, 2019
Reading RichardDawkins new book “Outgrowing God”, and as an Assyriologist I've had a couple of major face-palms moments. (A THREAD)
https://twitter.com/GHeathWhyte/status/1175081067943997440
George Heath-Whyte @GHeathWhyte | 12:15 PM · Sep 20, 2019
Reading RichardDawkins new book “Outgrowing God”, and as an Assyriologist I've had a couple of major face-palms moments. (A THREAD)
https://twitter.com/GHeathWhyte/status/1175081067943997440
64timspalding
I loved that thread.
65LolaWalser
>63 margd:
This is the first I hear about that book (Dawkins') and I have no bone (Sumerian or Akkadian or whathaveyou) in Assyriological races, but I don't see anywhere where the putative errors are related to the book's arguments.
And judging by the responses in the thread, this is actually the familiar scenario that follows each of Dawkins' atheist polemics--instead of addressing his arguments, attack his lack of expertise/technical errors in what, objectively (and to the chagrin of Assyriologists no less than theologians) are marginal matters.
Otoh, if it turns out Dawkins' argument turns to rubble when he wrote Sumerian instead of Akkadian, I will gladly stand corrected.
>64 timspalding:
I wonder if you see the irony here. You enjoy seeing Dawkins getting slammed for sloppiness (if it's that--it's actually not clear whether and in what degree the critic is talking about objective errors or different scholarly suppositions), but don't object to the criticism being so tangential to the heart of the polemic.
This is the first I hear about that book (Dawkins') and I have no bone (Sumerian or Akkadian or whathaveyou) in Assyriological races, but I don't see anywhere where the putative errors are related to the book's arguments.
And judging by the responses in the thread, this is actually the familiar scenario that follows each of Dawkins' atheist polemics--instead of addressing his arguments, attack his lack of expertise/technical errors in what, objectively (and to the chagrin of Assyriologists no less than theologians) are marginal matters.
Otoh, if it turns out Dawkins' argument turns to rubble when he wrote Sumerian instead of Akkadian, I will gladly stand corrected.
>64 timspalding:
I wonder if you see the irony here. You enjoy seeing Dawkins getting slammed for sloppiness (if it's that--it's actually not clear whether and in what degree the critic is talking about objective errors or different scholarly suppositions), but don't object to the criticism being so tangential to the heart of the polemic.
66LolaWalser
Actually, the very first "criticism" seems based on an unwarranted (and, imo, unintelligent assumption): that when Dawkins writes "...story in turns comes from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh", the "Sumerian" indicates the language rather than the country.
Personally I would not have jumped to that conclusion--but then, I am not a "PhD student in Assyriology". To me that reads first as "a story from Sumer"--something, I'd think, that's general knowledge (at least, if Gilgamesh isn't commonly associated with Sumer in people's minds, that would be news to me).
It most definitely doesn't read as an error. If I talk about Andrea Camilleri's books as "Italian", I'm not necessarily denying or ignoring that the language in which they are written is Sicilian (watered down, but undeniably dialectal).
The critic then goes on to confuse the issue by being unable to tell which story Dawkins is referring to. Turns out that Dawkins may be more or less right (on this minor issue, remember) depending on which version of the story is used.
It's pretty clear that the real problem is likely that our student knows too much about the myths of flood, rather than Dawkins knowing too little. Because for Dawkins, UNLESS his main topic is actually the mythology of Sumer (again, of his argument I know only what appears in that screen grab), what matters most likely is simply that there ARE very old stories about a great flood, and (maybe?) how they differ among mono- and polytheists (I speculate, as I see he refers to Sumerian polytheism).
That's "problem #1" being no problem at all.
"Problem #2" looks no better. Here he zeroes in on the sentence "Arguably the world's oldest piece of literature, it was written two thousand years earlier than the Noah story."
He claims both statements in that sentence are incorrect. The first one is prefaced with "arguably", which to me clearly denotes Dawkins isn't making an absolute statement--"arguably" means that the story/Gilgamesh/flood myth in question may or may not be "the world's oldest piece of literature". So the only one who's wrong is the critic who flat-out calls Dawkins' statement wrong. No. If there is a "raging debate" about whether or not this is "the world's oldest piece of literature", then Dawkins' "arguably" acknowledges that ambiguity nicely.
As for the second part of the sentence, I (and apparently many other, even expert people) don't know exactly how much older the story/Gilgamesh/flood myth in question is than the story of Noah. Dawkins (his sources) may be wrong about two thousand years; maybe it's less than two, maybe more--what seems clear, though, is that no one disputes that it is older. The Mesopotamian myth precedes the Near Eastern, iow.
Which, I expect, is the point--it usually is.
In sum, this is no better than any previous attack on Dawkins by "experts". And I can't say I don't understand them up to a point--as any specialist who has had to endure non-specialists' take on things pertaining to our fields, it's very common to feel they are stomping stupidly around flattening all the nuances and omigod could they BE more ignorant and uneducated etc. But, it has to be recognised when and what details matter to the argument, and when they don't. The "stompers" may be shallow, but the "experts" may be no less irrelevant.
Personally I would not have jumped to that conclusion--but then, I am not a "PhD student in Assyriology". To me that reads first as "a story from Sumer"--something, I'd think, that's general knowledge (at least, if Gilgamesh isn't commonly associated with Sumer in people's minds, that would be news to me).
It most definitely doesn't read as an error. If I talk about Andrea Camilleri's books as "Italian", I'm not necessarily denying or ignoring that the language in which they are written is Sicilian (watered down, but undeniably dialectal).
The critic then goes on to confuse the issue by being unable to tell which story Dawkins is referring to. Turns out that Dawkins may be more or less right (on this minor issue, remember) depending on which version of the story is used.
It's pretty clear that the real problem is likely that our student knows too much about the myths of flood, rather than Dawkins knowing too little. Because for Dawkins, UNLESS his main topic is actually the mythology of Sumer (again, of his argument I know only what appears in that screen grab), what matters most likely is simply that there ARE very old stories about a great flood, and (maybe?) how they differ among mono- and polytheists (I speculate, as I see he refers to Sumerian polytheism).
That's "problem #1" being no problem at all.
"Problem #2" looks no better. Here he zeroes in on the sentence "Arguably the world's oldest piece of literature, it was written two thousand years earlier than the Noah story."
He claims both statements in that sentence are incorrect. The first one is prefaced with "arguably", which to me clearly denotes Dawkins isn't making an absolute statement--"arguably" means that the story/Gilgamesh/flood myth in question may or may not be "the world's oldest piece of literature". So the only one who's wrong is the critic who flat-out calls Dawkins' statement wrong. No. If there is a "raging debate" about whether or not this is "the world's oldest piece of literature", then Dawkins' "arguably" acknowledges that ambiguity nicely.
As for the second part of the sentence, I (and apparently many other, even expert people) don't know exactly how much older the story/Gilgamesh/flood myth in question is than the story of Noah. Dawkins (his sources) may be wrong about two thousand years; maybe it's less than two, maybe more--what seems clear, though, is that no one disputes that it is older. The Mesopotamian myth precedes the Near Eastern, iow.
Which, I expect, is the point--it usually is.
In sum, this is no better than any previous attack on Dawkins by "experts". And I can't say I don't understand them up to a point--as any specialist who has had to endure non-specialists' take on things pertaining to our fields, it's very common to feel they are stomping stupidly around flattening all the nuances and omigod could they BE more ignorant and uneducated etc. But, it has to be recognised when and what details matter to the argument, and when they don't. The "stompers" may be shallow, but the "experts" may be no less irrelevant.
67timspalding
>65 LolaWalser:
It's definitely tangential, but it's part of a long-running pattern that is not tangential. Dawkins has a long history of writing on the literature, history and culture of religion. He's published more about these topics than most religion professors! At some point he ought to learn some basics. At some point, if he's unwilling to learn some basics, he ought to hit a few Wikipedia pages.
Mesopotamian literature may not be his forte. But Dawkins makes frequent arguments about texts. It's most important that he doesn't understand how Christians actually interpret them. That's really the fatal flaw here—he's a literalism and most Christians are not. But, yes, it's also matters that he has a sub-Wikipedia knowledge of the texts.
There's an interesting side issue here I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on, and others'. Namely, what do we "do" when reading a text we can't fully assess. Surely the best answer is to become PhD-level in everything—to become an expert—and the second-best is to listen to those who are. (If so, it's worth listening to people who have PhDs in religion!) But I find it useful to see what an author who writes about something beyond my knowledge does when they write about something within it.
Of course, a slip can be just a slip, but--all things being equal--errors on things I can verify speak to the credibility and diligence of the author generally. The problem is the worse when, as here, the author is hardly staying within the narrow confines of his or her professional training. Sloppy on this stuff or not, Dawkin's work on genetics is clearly very respected within the field. So when I read The Selfish Gene, I kept that much in mind. But his efforts in very different fields do not get the same pass.
It's definitely tangential, but it's part of a long-running pattern that is not tangential. Dawkins has a long history of writing on the literature, history and culture of religion. He's published more about these topics than most religion professors! At some point he ought to learn some basics. At some point, if he's unwilling to learn some basics, he ought to hit a few Wikipedia pages.
Mesopotamian literature may not be his forte. But Dawkins makes frequent arguments about texts. It's most important that he doesn't understand how Christians actually interpret them. That's really the fatal flaw here—he's a literalism and most Christians are not. But, yes, it's also matters that he has a sub-Wikipedia knowledge of the texts.
There's an interesting side issue here I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on, and others'. Namely, what do we "do" when reading a text we can't fully assess. Surely the best answer is to become PhD-level in everything—to become an expert—and the second-best is to listen to those who are. (If so, it's worth listening to people who have PhDs in religion!) But I find it useful to see what an author who writes about something beyond my knowledge does when they write about something within it.
Of course, a slip can be just a slip, but--all things being equal--errors on things I can verify speak to the credibility and diligence of the author generally. The problem is the worse when, as here, the author is hardly staying within the narrow confines of his or her professional training. Sloppy on this stuff or not, Dawkin's work on genetics is clearly very respected within the field. So when I read The Selfish Gene, I kept that much in mind. But his efforts in very different fields do not get the same pass.
68timspalding
In sum, this is no better than any previous attack on Dawkins by "experts".
One of the best tells out there of bad faith and ideology is when someone calls an expert an "expert," with quotes. The most common purveyors of this trick are the right. People with PhDs in climate science are, to those tools, always "so-called 'experts'." Right and left loonies love to slam the "vaccine 'experts,'" otherwise known as medical doctors and academic specialists in vaccines.
Sorry, but Heath-Whyte is writing a PhD dissertation on Marduk at Cambridge. You can disagree with him. His points can be immaterial. But he's an expert. And he's specifically an expert on the exact topic of his tweets.
One of the best tells out there of bad faith and ideology is when someone calls an expert an "expert," with quotes. The most common purveyors of this trick are the right. People with PhDs in climate science are, to those tools, always "so-called 'experts'." Right and left loonies love to slam the "vaccine 'experts,'" otherwise known as medical doctors and academic specialists in vaccines.
Sorry, but Heath-Whyte is writing a PhD dissertation on Marduk at Cambridge. You can disagree with him. His points can be immaterial. But he's an expert. And he's specifically an expert on the exact topic of his tweets.
69LolaWalser
>68 timspalding:
I have indicated repeatedly that this guy presumably has expertise in this field, and even shown understanding for his sensitivity on the subject, so I consider your attempt to smear me by association... deplorable. ;)
When I said 'In sum, this is no better than any previous attack on Dawkins by "experts"' I used quotes because 1) I was referring to the mass of similar earlier attacks by various people on Dawkins who 2) may or may not claim various levels of expertise, especially in fields other than their own. Without quotation marks, it would appear as if Dawkins had been criticised exclusively by people who knew what they were talking about--definitely not the case--or that all the experts were critical of his polemics. I'm also bestowing quotation marks on experts who argue disingenuously--or genuinely fail to comprehend--that Dawkins isn't engaging in theological, or, as in this case, archaeological debate. If he uses wrong data or makes factual errors pertaining to these fields, that's regrettable, but it's only bad as far as it warps his argument (or, THAT is the "badness" that matters).
Perhaps that was trying to convey too much with too little. In that case, rest assured I fully understand this critic is or is on the way to becoming an expert.
>67 timspalding:
Dawkins has a long history of writing on the literature, history and culture of religion. He's published more about these topics than most religion professors! At some point he ought to learn some basics.
This is misleading. As you well know, Dawkins doesn't write "on the literature, history and culture of religion" as a scholar of religious literature or history of religion, but as a polemicist who is addressing the claims religion makes in our everyday lives, to ordinary people.
But, yes, it's also matters that he has a sub-Wikipedia knowledge of the texts.
I'm no more a Dawkinologist than I am an Assyriologist but I haven't seen anyone prove Dawkins doesn't know the sources he's using sufficiently for the level of discussion and the type of arguments he's usually making.
Even more important, not once, in any of the previous arguments or, so far, regarding this latest book here, has it been shown how these purported errors damage his arguments.
Here in particular, as I noted in my second post, the criticism is actually worse than flimsy. From the get go, the critic misreads (or chooses to misread), a phrase as trivial and innocuous as "the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh". If he were my student, I wouldn't feel comfortable about the level of reading comprehension and judgement shown here.
There's an interesting side issue here I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on, and others'. Namely, what do we "do" when reading a text we can't fully assess.
I understand you are asking a general question, but please allow me first to address it in the context of this criticism--Dawkins wasn't claiming to or aiming to "fully assess" text(s) in Akkadian, Sumerian, whatever, on the flood lore. Again, I will stand corrected if I'm misapprehending the point of that passage, but the only thing that matters here is whether some people of old told a story about a great flood, and maybe (likely) which people told it before some other. Broad strokes rather than details.
As to the general question, well, I firmly believe in recognising our limits and proceeding with caution. But I would not a priori bar anyone from discussing anything (which demanding everyone first get PhDs in relevant topics amounts to). The more so the more deeply issues impinge on our lives.
Of course, a slip can be just a slip, but--all things being equal--errors on things I can verify speak to the credibility and diligence of the author generally.
Well, I can only repeat that I have yet to see what "sloppiness" we're talking about here.
As I noted (and for the third time now) the "first problem" is no problem at all. It's not sloppy to call Gilgamesh a "Sumerian story". As for what he calls the second problem, if there's a controversy about by how many centuries exactly Gilgamesh precedes the Bible (the flood myths anyway), it's not one Dawkins is writing about. Presumably he didn't pull the "two thousand" out of his ass. If people are debating that number, that's something that definitely needs to be mentioned if one is writing about the dating of the myths as the main topic. But if, as I surmise, that's only broadly important for Dawkins' argument, specifying a number may be grating to the scholars who haven't agreed on it, but is not a fatal mistake within a book of this kind (I'm guessing).
There isn't just scholarship and sloppiness. Pop science, pop philosophy, pop anything, relies a lot on simplified issues, differences glossed over etc.
In short, I can understand the irritability of the scholar who sees a swarm of issues where others see a couple of words--but we must know when and whether those issues matter.
From that limited sample and according to my limited knowledge (something I probably share with the majority of the non-Assyriologist populace), the passage doesn't read sloppy. It reads simple and uncontroversial. It seems to be saying something intelligible involving stuff I (and no doubt most of us) already know i.e. have read in similar context.
I've no problem believing the scholarship on the flood myths, Sumerians etc. is vast and debates complicated. That's TYPICAL for scholarship. But even the grad students among us should know to read stuff on its own terms.
I have indicated repeatedly that this guy presumably has expertise in this field, and even shown understanding for his sensitivity on the subject, so I consider your attempt to smear me by association... deplorable. ;)
When I said 'In sum, this is no better than any previous attack on Dawkins by "experts"' I used quotes because 1) I was referring to the mass of similar earlier attacks by various people on Dawkins who 2) may or may not claim various levels of expertise, especially in fields other than their own. Without quotation marks, it would appear as if Dawkins had been criticised exclusively by people who knew what they were talking about--definitely not the case--or that all the experts were critical of his polemics. I'm also bestowing quotation marks on experts who argue disingenuously--or genuinely fail to comprehend--that Dawkins isn't engaging in theological, or, as in this case, archaeological debate. If he uses wrong data or makes factual errors pertaining to these fields, that's regrettable, but it's only bad as far as it warps his argument (or, THAT is the "badness" that matters).
Perhaps that was trying to convey too much with too little. In that case, rest assured I fully understand this critic is or is on the way to becoming an expert.
>67 timspalding:
Dawkins has a long history of writing on the literature, history and culture of religion. He's published more about these topics than most religion professors! At some point he ought to learn some basics.
This is misleading. As you well know, Dawkins doesn't write "on the literature, history and culture of religion" as a scholar of religious literature or history of religion, but as a polemicist who is addressing the claims religion makes in our everyday lives, to ordinary people.
But, yes, it's also matters that he has a sub-Wikipedia knowledge of the texts.
I'm no more a Dawkinologist than I am an Assyriologist but I haven't seen anyone prove Dawkins doesn't know the sources he's using sufficiently for the level of discussion and the type of arguments he's usually making.
Even more important, not once, in any of the previous arguments or, so far, regarding this latest book here, has it been shown how these purported errors damage his arguments.
Here in particular, as I noted in my second post, the criticism is actually worse than flimsy. From the get go, the critic misreads (or chooses to misread), a phrase as trivial and innocuous as "the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh". If he were my student, I wouldn't feel comfortable about the level of reading comprehension and judgement shown here.
There's an interesting side issue here I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on, and others'. Namely, what do we "do" when reading a text we can't fully assess.
I understand you are asking a general question, but please allow me first to address it in the context of this criticism--Dawkins wasn't claiming to or aiming to "fully assess" text(s) in Akkadian, Sumerian, whatever, on the flood lore. Again, I will stand corrected if I'm misapprehending the point of that passage, but the only thing that matters here is whether some people of old told a story about a great flood, and maybe (likely) which people told it before some other. Broad strokes rather than details.
As to the general question, well, I firmly believe in recognising our limits and proceeding with caution. But I would not a priori bar anyone from discussing anything (which demanding everyone first get PhDs in relevant topics amounts to). The more so the more deeply issues impinge on our lives.
Of course, a slip can be just a slip, but--all things being equal--errors on things I can verify speak to the credibility and diligence of the author generally.
Well, I can only repeat that I have yet to see what "sloppiness" we're talking about here.
As I noted (and for the third time now) the "first problem" is no problem at all. It's not sloppy to call Gilgamesh a "Sumerian story". As for what he calls the second problem, if there's a controversy about by how many centuries exactly Gilgamesh precedes the Bible (the flood myths anyway), it's not one Dawkins is writing about. Presumably he didn't pull the "two thousand" out of his ass. If people are debating that number, that's something that definitely needs to be mentioned if one is writing about the dating of the myths as the main topic. But if, as I surmise, that's only broadly important for Dawkins' argument, specifying a number may be grating to the scholars who haven't agreed on it, but is not a fatal mistake within a book of this kind (I'm guessing).
There isn't just scholarship and sloppiness. Pop science, pop philosophy, pop anything, relies a lot on simplified issues, differences glossed over etc.
In short, I can understand the irritability of the scholar who sees a swarm of issues where others see a couple of words--but we must know when and whether those issues matter.
From that limited sample and according to my limited knowledge (something I probably share with the majority of the non-Assyriologist populace), the passage doesn't read sloppy. It reads simple and uncontroversial. It seems to be saying something intelligible involving stuff I (and no doubt most of us) already know i.e. have read in similar context.
I've no problem believing the scholarship on the flood myths, Sumerians etc. is vast and debates complicated. That's TYPICAL for scholarship. But even the grad students among us should know to read stuff on its own terms.
70mikevail
>69 LolaWalser:
"But even the grad students among us should know to read stuff on its own terms."
I may be wrong, but I suspect the underlying motivation behind Mr. Heath-Whyte's criticism springs from his personal belief system rather than a pressing need to protect the public from the consequences of erroneous Assyriological scholarship.
"But even the grad students among us should know to read stuff on its own terms."
I may be wrong, but I suspect the underlying motivation behind Mr. Heath-Whyte's criticism springs from his personal belief system rather than a pressing need to protect the public from the consequences of erroneous Assyriological scholarship.
71LolaWalser
Heh, possibly. Anyway, I requested the book from my library (copies still "on order" so it may be a while) and will report back. I can say though that the description on the library's page seems to confirm that overwrought archaeological criticism may be out of place here:
"Summary
Should we believe in God? In this brisk introduction to modern atheism, one of the world's greatest science writers tells us why we shouldn't.
Richard Dawkins was fifteen when he stopped believing in God.
Deeply impressed by the beauty and complexity of living things, he'd felt certain they must have had a designer. Learning about evolution changed his mind. Now one of the world's best and bestselling science communicators, Dawkins has given readers, young and old, the same opportunity to rethink the big questions.
In twelve fiercely funny, mind-expanding chapters, Dawkins explains how the natural world arose without a designer--the improbability and beauty of the "bottom-up programming" that engineers an embryo or a flock of starlings--and challenges head-on some of the most basic assumptions made by the world's religions: Do you believe in God? Which one? Is the Bible a "Good Book"? Is adhering to a religion necessary, or even likely, to make people good to one another? Dissecting everything from Abraham's abuse of Isaac to the construction of a snowflake, Outgrowing God is a concise, provocative guide to thinking for yourself."
"Summary
Should we believe in God? In this brisk introduction to modern atheism, one of the world's greatest science writers tells us why we shouldn't.
Richard Dawkins was fifteen when he stopped believing in God.
Deeply impressed by the beauty and complexity of living things, he'd felt certain they must have had a designer. Learning about evolution changed his mind. Now one of the world's best and bestselling science communicators, Dawkins has given readers, young and old, the same opportunity to rethink the big questions.
In twelve fiercely funny, mind-expanding chapters, Dawkins explains how the natural world arose without a designer--the improbability and beauty of the "bottom-up programming" that engineers an embryo or a flock of starlings--and challenges head-on some of the most basic assumptions made by the world's religions: Do you believe in God? Which one? Is the Bible a "Good Book"? Is adhering to a religion necessary, or even likely, to make people good to one another? Dissecting everything from Abraham's abuse of Isaac to the construction of a snowflake, Outgrowing God is a concise, provocative guide to thinking for yourself."
72LolaWalser
The Assyriologist was clearly having a (mean-spirited) laugh. The subtitle "a beginner's guide" is fair warning already, but this book is aimed at children--young people anyway. There's the dedication, "For William And all young people when they are old enough to decide for themselves", and then sample the text to see the level it's pitched at:
I don't see how anyone could mistake the nature of the text after that?
The part that the Assyriologist took exception to occurs in Chapter 3, titled "Myths and how they start", and is only one example of--as you can predict from the chapter title--stories that (re)occur in various traditions.
After some other examples, it is introduced thus:
I would say my arguments above are vindicated--1) it is not at all clear that Dawkins is peddling outrageously erroneous data 2) the level of academic detail the critic apparently demands is unreasonable in context 3) neither is relevant to the gist of Dawkins' argument here, the reason he brings up these examples in the first place, which is to explain that myths are related and those in the Bible have origins in other even older stories.
I flipped forward to the chapter "Crystals and jigsaw puzzles" and I could just as easily nitpick and make fun of Dawkins for sentences like these:
Marriage? Jigsaws? What a terrible metaphor to use, how downright misleading it is from the reality of molecular structure and chemical dynamics. Way below the Wikipedia level, I'm sure etc.
Eh.
Do you believe in God?
Which god?
Thousands of gods have been worshipped throughout the world, throughout history. Polytheists believe in lots of gods all at the same time (theos is Greek for 'god', and poly is Greek for 'many'). Wotan (or Odin) was the chief god of the Vikings. other Viking gods were Baldr (god of beauty), Thor (the thunder god with his mighty hammer) and his daughter Throd. There were goddesses like Snotra (goddess of wisdom), Frigg (goddess of motherhood) and Ran (goddess of the sea). (...) Romans at one time said the early Christians were atheists because they didn't believe in Jupiter or Neptune or any of that crowd. Nowadays we use the word for people who don't believe in any gods at all.
I don't see how anyone could mistake the nature of the text after that?
The part that the Assyriologist took exception to occurs in Chapter 3, titled "Myths and how they start", and is only one example of--as you can predict from the chapter title--stories that (re)occur in various traditions.
After some other examples, it is introduced thus:
What, then, can we say about the myths from the beginning of Genesis? Adam and Eve? Or Noah's Ark? The Noah story comes directly from a Babylonian myth, the legend of Utnapishtim...
I would say my arguments above are vindicated--1) it is not at all clear that Dawkins is peddling outrageously erroneous data 2) the level of academic detail the critic apparently demands is unreasonable in context 3) neither is relevant to the gist of Dawkins' argument here, the reason he brings up these examples in the first place, which is to explain that myths are related and those in the Bible have origins in other even older stories.
I flipped forward to the chapter "Crystals and jigsaw puzzles" and I could just as easily nitpick and make fun of Dawkins for sentences like these:
Think of all the molecules whizzing about in the cell as jigsaw puzzle pieces. Molecule X needs to find molecule Y in order to join up with it and make XY. The X/Y marriage is just one of the hundreds of vitally important chemical reactions...
Marriage? Jigsaws? What a terrible metaphor to use, how downright misleading it is from the reality of molecular structure and chemical dynamics. Way below the Wikipedia level, I'm sure etc.
Eh.
73margd
So atheists talk in metaphors just like believers do? :)
Has anyone here read Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Barbara Thiering, I wonder? She compared and translated NT story of Jesus with writings found in Dead Sea scrolls. It's been a while, but if I recall correctly, her thesis was that he was the "mad priest" in dismissive writings by John the Baptist's followers. (Essenes all?). Lots on traditions that may have preceded / explained baptism, eucharist, celibacy, virgin birth, 40 days in desert, etc. Fascinating account that colored many a Sunday morning for me with echoes of very old accounts and traditions. No doubt a reflection of my theological paucity! Apparently Australian public TV covered Thiering's book, but *crickets* here.
Has anyone here read Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Barbara Thiering, I wonder? She compared and translated NT story of Jesus with writings found in Dead Sea scrolls. It's been a while, but if I recall correctly, her thesis was that he was the "mad priest" in dismissive writings by John the Baptist's followers. (Essenes all?). Lots on traditions that may have preceded / explained baptism, eucharist, celibacy, virgin birth, 40 days in desert, etc. Fascinating account that colored many a Sunday morning for me with echoes of very old accounts and traditions. No doubt a reflection of my theological paucity! Apparently Australian public TV covered Thiering's book, but *crickets* here.
74LolaWalser
Use of metaphors is legit catholic. :)
76margd
Not just Dead Sea Scrolls, but the buildings and structures, e.g., ritual bathing/purification, the women's quarters, a dock a few inches under water, so one could be said to be walking on water. Lots of riddles it seems (to hide from outsiders, Romans?), meaningful only to those who have "ears to hear"--where have I heard that before -- i.e., not those of us in the back pews! I seem to recall a Jesuit comment on back cover calling it an interesting perspective. To me, explanations most evocative for early years and on parallel traditions. Seemed overly speculative on Jesus's last days: if I recall correctly, no scrolls then, just archeology and sociology/history.
77John5918
A piece by an Islamic thinker.
Can atheists make their case without devolving into bigotry? (Al Jazeera)
They can, but for examples we must look to James Baldwin and Stephen Hawking, not the 'enlightened' Richard Dawkins...
Can atheists make their case without devolving into bigotry? (Al Jazeera)
They can, but for examples we must look to James Baldwin and Stephen Hawking, not the 'enlightened' Richard Dawkins...
