Dawkins, a victim to the Two Cultures wars?

[turoldus]

It's evidence of the magical (divine?) nature of Richard Dawkins that His name is invoked even when it has nothing to do, or very little, with the topic of the discussion. Here one MartinRDB commenting Jonathan Jones' latest article on the death of "high culture" sees a literati cabal behind Dawkins' current misfortunes:

On the whole, there remains in Britain, a strong tendency to sneer at Science and scientists and this is reflected in how much and the way they are paid. There seems to be a need to keep scientists 'in their place'.

I am sure that the two culture divide is an important factor in the vehement Dawkins bashing that goes on. There is the sense of 'how dare he?' and many who complain that he knows nothing outside Biology, yet when called to provide specifics these same critics are strangely silent.

Maybe because a whole list would be way too long, and critics like other people have a life outside the web?

[Mike D]

Given the screeds that have been written on "why Dawkins expertise on belief, religion and theology could be written on a 5p piece with quite a lot of room left over" (5p is about 18 mm across, for those who aren't au fait with UK currency), especially with regard to reviews of God Delusion, I think MartinRDB must have been surfing the net with his "3 monkeys" filter well and truly in place. Critics *do* appear silent if you stick your fingers in your ears.

I'm not sure that I agree with him about the tendency to sneer at scientists either. I don't think that Brits are particularly scientifically literate, but that tends to be because they see it (as far as I have seen) as the preserve of brainiacs rather than because they hold science or scientists in any kind of contempt.

[bjorn]

I, for one, wrote a 272 pages book a year and a half ago, with almost a 100 pages devoted to specific errors of Dawkins.

OTOH, I did a talk about The New Atheists last year, and it was reported on the RD-forum (richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=37532#p717473).

The one reporting stated that I hadn't commented on RD's central argument about "more complexity" not being an answer for complexity, while I in reality had discussed it across 15 slides.

The lecturer turns to Dawkins "super argument" in chapter four of TGD, but simply dismisses it as something atheists should be embarrassed of. For some reason I haven't written anything except this when it comes to that section of the lecture so either he didn't say much more or I was for some reason not consciously present at the time

The amount of misunderstandings, distortions and omissions in the "review" is to marvel at, even if he also managed to get something right

It is telling how hard it is for people from Dawkins' camp even to describe the other side correctly.

[humphreyclarke]

He seems to think you should stick to telecommunications.

Through almost all of the lecture he went on saying how little Dawkins knew when he was not writing/discussing about his own field (biology), but that made me think "Well, what about yourself? You're a civil engineer working for a telecommunications company? Is religion your field?" I guess he thinks he knows everything when he's not writing/discussing about his own field

Guess I would only be allowed to write about sales and marketing.

Glad to see the flat earth came up!.

He then goes on explaining how the French revolution was done in the name of atheism (looks like he's mixing secularism with atheism to me), and talks about "atheist-oriented regimes" like the Soviet Union. "In these regimes religion is bad and must be stopped with all means necessary." (This is again something I wanted to address in the Q&A section as this is utterly bullnuts. Religion thrived in communist regimes. What didn't thrive, and was looked down upon, was organized religion. Of course they went to the extremes in some places, but communism is NOT equivalent to atheism.

I can sort of see the point of seeing that the militantly anti religious policies of communist regimes during the 20th century are not equivalent to cuddly alternatives like secular humanism, but what's the point of denying that the French national assembly tried to get rid of Christianity and the Soviets tried to exterminate religion?. It's a historical fact.

Of course they went to the extremes in some places

Well, that's a contender for understatement of the year.

[bjorn]

Thanks ;D

This "Civil Engineer" bit is always a bummer. However, as part of my studies were in History of Science and Technology, and I also later have done some Philosophy, Cultural Anthropology and other subjects , it takes far too long to bring it all on the table

Still, the report is interesting as it made me aware of what I needed to emphazise in later lectures.

[humphreyclarke]

May 8, 2009 16:59:00 GMT bjorn said:

Thanks ;D

This "Civil Engineer" bit is always a bummer. However, as part of my studies were in History of Science and Technology, and I also later have done some Philosophy, Cultural Anthropology and other subjects , it takes far too long to bring it all on the table

Still, the report is interesting as it made me aware of what I needed to emphazise in later lectures.

I have to say I did chuckle at the thought of your 'reviewer' attending your lecture and furiously brandishing his copy of 'The God Delusion' in case you happened to misquote from it. It is rapidly becoming the 'Communist Manifesto' of this generation.

[unkleE]

May 8, 2009 18:14:37 GMT humphreyclarke said:

I have to say I did chuckle at the thought of your 'reviewer' attending your lecture and furiously brandishing his copy of 'The God Delusion' in case you happened to misquote from it. It is rapidly becoming the 'Communist Manifesto' of this generation.

Are you getting the picture I'm getting? Thousands of red-suited fanatics doing morning calisthenics while holding Dawkins "little grey book" and shouting lines from the master?

[As a historian, you may tell me that this didn't happen in Mao's China, but I'll keep believing the myth! : ) ]