"A scientist looking at nonscientific problems,'' said the great physicist Richard Feynman, "is just as dumb as the next guy.'' That's not necessarily anyone else's concern -- unless the scientist in question is claiming to speak, with scientific authority, for the rest of us.
A fresh case in point is this analysis by Oxford's Richard Dawkins, from an interview published earlier this month in Britain's Guardian (see the sixth paragraph). As part of his ongoing campaign to get "downtrodden,'' apologetic atheists stand up for themselves, Dawkins suggests that we secular humanists emulate other minorities. For instance, the Jews:
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
The historian David H. Fischer identified this kind of rhetoric as "the fallacy of equivocation.'' That's where, he wrote, "a term is used in two or more senses within a single argument, so that a conclusion appears to follow when in fact it does not.'' Dawkins starts with the "Jewish lobby'' (by which one presumes he means the pro-Israel lobby, from his later reference to foreign policy). Then he says "they'' are less numerous than atheists (so now the referent is not an office-full of people, but rather, American Jews). Then he qualifies the term to mean "religious Jews.'' We've gone from (1) AIPAC to (2) "the Jews'' to (3) Jews who believe in God and (4) Jews who follow traditional practice. (The term "religious Jews'' could describe both types of person, and there is no reason to think that everyone in category 4 is also in category 3.)
In short, quite a muddle. I cannot tell who we secularists should be trying to copy -- lobbyists, ethnically Jewish Americans, believers in a deity or people who hold to traditional practice without reflecting on ultimate questions. Only one thing is clear: By casually echoing the rhetoric of anti-Semites, Dawkins has made a fool of himself and, by extension, those of us for whom he claims to speak.
The interesting question is: Why? How could Dawkins, the holder of Oxford's Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, miss the differences among the kinds of people he lumps together, both in the Guardian interview and on the website? Those distinctions are well-documented. Pro-Israel lobbyists get plenty of support in the US from non-Jews (importantly including conservative evangelical Christians). Meanwhile, plenty of Jews, in Israel and throughout the world, do not support the goals of this lobby. Take a look here for an example. Then too, there are religious Jews who most emphatically do not support the State of Israel or its goals. Have a look here, for instance.
As it happens, the potency of pro-Israel lobbyists has been much in the news lately, since John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt just published a long-germinating book that analyzes the effect of the lobby in the U.S. (You can read a shorter version of their arguments here. Briefly, they say lobbyists for Israel have been highly successful in influencing government policy -- as have the National Rifle Association or the AARP. Perhaps the controversy over their book inspired Dawkins' remark.
But they don't say what Dawkins is saying. In fact, Mearsheimer, offered a chance to say precisely what Dawkins claimed, instead explained that this picture is not supported by his and Walt's study. You can see him saying it here.
Anyone can get his facts wrong and later correct himself. But Dawkins' confusion suggests a deeper problem -- a conceptual misunderstanding about identity. That mistake may stem from his casting himself as a leader of downtrodden atheists. In any event, it explains why his movement is doomed.
The problem, briefly, is just this: Identity-based behavior is not a unitary phenomenon. It comes in many forms. And what people do in one mode does not predict what they will do in another. The forms overlap (you can be at the same time a Dawkinsian secular humanist and a Jewish person and an activist for Palestinian rights). We often use the same language for the different types. All that makes the fallacy of equivocation easy to commit. But it's still an error.
Dawkins' statement, for example, invokes at least three different modes of identity. First, there is identity based on a consciously chosen belief. (You've thought about U.S. policy in the Middle East and come to a conclusion about what you want the Government to do.) Second, there is identity based on habit and upbringing. Maybe you don't believe in God or approve of West Bank settlements, but you go to seder at your grandparents (it's family, it's childhood, it's what "we'' do). Third is identity based on a trait that is perceived to be involuntary, and often thought to be inherited. You can decide to support Palestinian rights or choose to go to the movies on Yom Kippur, but somehow, you feel, you can't change where you come from.
Identities of the second type, like knowing yourself to be Irish or Catholic or a Yankees fan or a hunter, come to you through early experiences, where you're taken through the rites and patterns of life that teach you "what we do'' and "who we are.'' Such identities are learned by the body, in sights, smells, sounds and movements that arrive before reason. The mode was well described by the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, when he wrote:
We acquire habits of conduct, not by constructing a way of living upon rules or precepts learned by heart and subsequently practiced, but by living with people who habitually behave in a certain manner: we acquire habits of conduct in the same way as we acquire our native language.
This sort of identity is rather impervious to rational thought and official declarations, and a good thing too. I, for one, am glad that my sense of being American -- my sense that home is home -- does not depend on the policies of the federal government.
Identities of the third type are imposed. They arise out of the encounters you have with the rest of the world; encounters you cannot refuse to see and cannot wish away. You can decide how to deal with such an identity -- whether, for example, you want to be an out and proud member of the GLBT community or a total closet case. But you cannot decide to leave such an identity behind you. The rest of the world won't allow it.
Now, atheism is an identity of the first type, the conscious, thought- out sort. That is the point Dawkins makes when he says we should not refer to a "Catholic child'' or a "Muslim child,'' because a child can't decide what s/he thinks about the existence of God.
The problem, though, is that identities based on opinions feel ephemeral, because opinions change all the time. With an identity based only on opinion, you have two unattractive choices: (1) Admit that tomorrow you could no longer belong to the tribe, because you might change your mind; or (2) admit that in order to preserve tribal feeling, you will have to behave as if your opinion is much more certain and consistent than a normal thought.
This second choice is what Dawkins advocated, I think, when he wrote this on his web site:
I admit, I sympathize with those skeptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem.
But the problem with atheist solidarity (and the reason atheist groups are comically riven by orthodoxies, inquisitions, purges and schisms) is not that all members are nuanced, independent thinkers. It is that atheism, unlike sexual orientation or religious upbringing or beloved cultural tradition, is an easily-changed conviction, and everyone knows it. Dawkins can't admit this because he wants to lead his people into the Promised Land, and to do that he needs to have a people. He thinks atheists just need to go slumming, and pretend for a bit to believe the same thing. But identities that matter are not based on belief at all.
Most everyone knows this, and so very few people can take atheism seriously as a basis for understanding "what kind of person I am.'' Instead, the identities that make people glad, mad, and weepy are those about which people feel they have no choice: The identities they learn at their parents' knees, the experiences imposed on them by the beliefs of the neighbors. Not coincidentally, it is those identities that make people cough up money to support effective lobbyists in Washington. Identities like "hunter'' (National Rifle Association) and "gay person'' (Human Rights Campaign) and "old person'' (American Association of Retired Persons).
Could atheism be made then into such an identity? For example, by atheist parents who raise atheist children with explicitly atheist annual rituals and beloved cultural icons? (The standard American Christmas is fairly secular but it pretends not to be, so it wouldn't count.) Well, sure. You can make a convincing identity out of anything, if you put generations of effort into it. And perhaps, with his t-shirts, buttons, instructions for holding meetings, this is what Richard Dawkins is aiming at. In the meantime, though, he is fooling himself and making the rest of us secularists look like idiots.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dawkins believes that we all have the right to live free of oppression from religion. He's right. There should be a united voice to push back against those who want to mix their religion into everything.
2/3 of Europe's Jewish population was systimatically exterminated 60 years ago. Let's see, if 200,000,000 of American's 300,000,000 million people were systematically exterminated only 60 years ago, what kind of suvival pyschic would govern us now? Look how weird our nation has become in only 5 years since 3,000 people were killed in 9/11.
People scapegoat when they have incompetent leadership. Rather than blame the Jewish lobbiest, why not blame the politicans who are bribed by lobbiests to begin with?
It bothers me when we go down the blame the Jews path of history....I don't want to go there. I'd rather see Bush impeached as many of us do....
My own view is that they exist only as concepts in people's minds, but I was actually posing the question to believers wondering what they think.
Does YP believe there is more than one God "out there" or are the others deluded?
Sounds like he needs to get off of it. Look at the twenty five Holocost Museums in 25 major American Cities at cost to the American Taxpayer. Look again real hard at the movement of American Jews getting us into this mess in Iraq for Israel's perceived security needs, and look real hard at all of what AIPAC is doing to get us into Iran. What will it take to get the AJC to realize that it has overreached? Absolutely nothing, because of the political and religious whores bandying about b.s. for Israel. Most of us are not asking for a pogrom or anything of the sort against Jews because we are not against Jews for the sake of being against Jews as true antisemites are, but we are sick and tired of your bought and paid for overrepresentation in the halls of political power.
You're taking what Dawkins said totally out of context. I read his latest book. What he's saying is that in America there are more atheists then Jews. Atheists have not been able to get themselves heard in politics. Jewish people have, despite being fewer in numbers. All he was saying is that atheists need to be more vocal.
Good Post on Dawkins. There are many secular and religious Jews who despise the Israel Right Wingnut NeoCon Lobby in control of Bush Cheney policies being delivered by the WHouse.
There are many Jews in Israel who are totally against their right wing govt in Israel.
The Christians who enable the Israeli lobby are "Christian Zionists" some 5 million strong and chillingly reminiscent of Nazis. Joe Lieberman is one of their dear friends and comes to their religious orgies to speak frequently.
There are Jews who foolishly embrace this bunch and they call themselves Zionists. Actually whether devout or not they are neocons who believe that "Christian Zionists"
will help control the Mideast and disarm Iran using Nukes if the can.
Many Jews like myself are actively opposed to these and their violent extremism. They believe "Christian Zionists" will help them to reach the "Rapture" in the Promised Land and control Mideast and Mideast oil. They show rampant hostility to all Arab nations and want to eliminate them.
Should this horrific scenario ever happen, the Jews will wonder what happened when after seizing power, the "Christian Zionists" will dump them, or as their scriptures suggest,...send them all back to Hell.
It took me a little time, but I think I found the problem with your argument. I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first, but I think these three sentences sum it up:
"First, there is identity based on a consciously chosen belief.
...
Now, atheism is an identity of the first type, the conscious, thought- out sort.
...
The problem, though, is that identities based on opinions feel ephemeral, because opinions change all the time."
Your assumption is wrong: Atheism is not an opinion. Atheists have looked at the world and concluded that there is no compelling existance of gods. This may sound like an opinion, but you could use the same phrase to describe any scientific conclusion:
Biologists have looked at the world and concluded that there is compelling evidence for the theory of Evolution, and none for the Genesis story.
Physists have looked at the world and concluded that there is no compelling evidence for a flat earth, but there is for Newtonian physics and Quantum Mechanics.
Chemists have looked at the world and concluded that there is no compelling evidence that Helium will, with little effort, combust in the presence of Oxygen.
These are conclusions based on facts, and to call them opinions is to cheapen them. I am not of the opinion that my car has half a tank of gas, I have looked at my gas guage, driven my car a lot, ran it empty twice, and have concluded that the guage is fairly accurate when it displays half a tank.
My point in all of that is that Atheism is not an opinion; it has been checked with the facts of reality and passed all tests.
Unfortunately, biologists or paleontologists or those indulging in physics or astronomy or have nothing significant to say about Genesis as a religious or philosophical document. To do so would be to stray from what science is concerned with, and not what the popular interpretation of science should be.
You are 100% correct that "biologists or paleontologists or those indulging in physics or astronomy or have nothing significant to say about Genesis as a religious or philosophical document". But scientific claims in the bible are within the realms of science.
Genesis is about the origin of the universe in general, and humankind in particular. The claims of the bible violates everything about both the sciences of cosmology and evolution. And those sciences are backed up by the sciences of astronomy, relativity, quantum theory, biology, geneology, palentology, geology, etc. The list is essentially endless. (Notice intelligent design is missing...)
It seems wrong accept ideas of science to get the benefits - medicine, storable/usable energy, computers, airplanes - but deny the same ideas when it conflicts with what you've read in a 3000 year old book.
(continued from above. forgive the verbosity, but if the original article is any indication, this is not a problem for the author, to whom this post is targeted)
Even if it was an opinion, however, I do not think that it is one that is easily swayed. One's thoughts on God, especially if brought up religious, do not easily change, and rarely change more than once in one's lifetime, and 0 more often than not. The lucidity of the "beliefs" of atheists, if such things could be considered beliefs, would not be a factor, and would be no cause for disorganized behavior in such a group.
I think a better explination would have something to do with the anti-establishment mentality of many atheists who broke away from judeo-christian religions, and the fact that atheists have not been numerous for near as long as many other groups, religious or otherwise. It would probably also have to do with how many are afraid to tell their own family members for fear of a backlash (which is unfortunately a reality more often than it should be). I would think that the variance of disagreement with how to go about solving problems, caused by religion and otherwise.
It would say nothing of the possiblity of its members losing their atheism.
StormTrooperVII you say:
"My point in all of that is that Atheism is not an opinion; it has been checked with the facts of reality and passed all tests. "
It"s odd that for someone so dogmatic about the "Truth of Atheism" you failed to present any facts to support your position.
However I think you are correct in highlighting the "anti-establishment" mentality of many vocal Atheists. From my observation vocal Atheists aren"t so much interested in a genuine search for the truth of God"s existence or non existence. Instead they seem more interested in trying to destroy the Churches of orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, and ridiculing their members.
Why do Atheists tend to single out orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Protestants? I think it"s because of sex. Both orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Protestants refuse to accept the legitimacy of sex outside of a heterosexual marriage or abortion. Scratch the surface and this is what motivates many people to hate religion and label themselves as Atheists. It has little to do with science or facts or reality.
Sir, you obfuscate Dawkins' point by changing the subject. Yes, in the statement you highlight--a verbal statement that may not have quite the accuracy of a written one--Dawkins does slightly confuse the jewish subgroup to which he is referring. But not really. In the dash-delineated aside, he makes it clear that he is referring to *American religious jews* who are outnumbered by American athiests. AND YET, the American jewish lobby has far more influence in American policy. Period. Not "a muddle"--or a very simple one that is forgivable given that this was a quotation and not an excerpt from his writing. All your hand waving is just so much knee-jerk defensive sniveling. If you want a clearer statement from Dawkins, I suggest you read the preface of The God Delusion (page 4). If you do so, and if you still feel like splitting hairs, you could point out that in his book, he says "American pools suggest that atheists *and* agnostics (my emphasis) far outnumber religious Jews..." In the interview, he didn't include agnostics, and I'm sure this was a mistake.
"Jewish subgroup?"
hmmm, interesting teminology
Dear EspressoAtNoon:
I would like to sign up for the assemblage that combats ideologically driven zealotry. Unfortunately, we won't need a very large room for the meeting.
A more practical approach would be a non-faith based, compassionate, and humanistic assemblage of like-minded people who try and lobby against genocide, racism, ethnocentricism, Zionism, Evangelism, all faith based "isms", etc... - something to offset the Israel Lobby and other ideological driven zealotry.
Apparently you have not investigated the Quakers or the Unitarian-Universalists in order to find like-minded people who lobby FOR justice and AGAINST all forms of fundamentalism.* Both groups are faith-based but their faith is in the individual and not in revealed texts. And NO, all the people you find in the above groups will not be like minded on all issues, but the chance of having an interesting conversation and even learning something is very high.
*fundamentalism-the unwillingness to entertain options.
EspressoAtNoon wrote...
"A more practical approach would be a non-faith based, compassionate, and humanistic assemblage of like-minded people who try and lobby against genocide, racism, ethnocentricism, Zionism, Evangelism, all faith based "isms", etc... - something to offset the Israel Lobby and other ideological driven zealotry."
OK... and we can also be aware that rejecting all "isms" is itself an "ism."
I personally connect with the word/idea "God" like this. There have been passing moments in which I've experienced a perspective from which all things are in perfect balance, in which each thing is perfect and complete as it is.
At many other times, I don't experience that perspective, but I still remember it, I still believe in its validity, so it informs my view of the world even when it's not immediately apparent.
When I see someone who's suffering from the idea that the universe is inherently miserable and unfair, I sometimes find it simpler to not explain it in the verbose way I've done above, but instead say something like, "Let God take care of it." A belief that God is perfect, and that God controls everything, isn't far off from these "perfect balance" experiences I've had.
Dawkins is onto something, and I love the way he champions reason over blind belief and sheep-like following. I'm not sure that the word or idea of "God" is really at the core of this issue.
What this boils down to: maybe atheism is far more workable as a perspective that may arise for individuals as they learn to think for themselves and break away from group identity. Maybe atheism isn't so well suited to be a group identity itself.
The gnostic scholar Solomon Schechter (1847-1915), in his still interesting 1909 monograph, Some aspects of rabbinic theology, spoke of the rising tide of 'higher criticism' being equivalent to a 'higher antisemitism'. Similarly, we now have Richard Dawkins: whose vociferous attacks (echoed by the bigotry of the biological theoretician Bill Hamilton) against Stephen Jay Gould derived not from scientific dialogue about hypotheses; and his continuing rejuvenation of the concept that, somehow, we Jews 'control' existence. It is one thing to discuss critical questions with openness and documentation (as a Jew, I have criticisms of Israeli governments, which is my right as a Jew), but Mr Dawkins goes beyond this. His 'genic selectionism' is nonsensical, but his ill-disguised recapitulation, in 2007, of the exterminationist Protocols of the Elders of Zion needs to be corrected.
Stephan Pickering/Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
Extremely cogent and on-target. Mr. Dawkins has in some sense lost his way in science and seems mired in misconceptions of philosophy, religion and just basic common sense. He is a mostly good popularizer of science, perhaps not as effective as Steve Gould was, but useful. Most of his philosophical and historical interpretations are a step down from the Durant's popular histories of some time ago. Unfortunately for Mr. Dawkins, he is not as precise a writer as Mr. Hitchens, on much the same topic.
Your conscious mind may be atheist, but if you were raised in a religious tradtion as a child, then your subconcious will remain religious and you have no control over the feeling that ensue.
Not necessarily. Those who've been brainwashed from early ages will feel certain feelings of guilt from time to time, but it is quite feasible to vacate your subconscious from religious doctrine.
How do you vacate your subconscious mind ?
It seems an impossible task.
I hate to break it to Dawkins and the author of this article, but atheism is just simply not believing in God. There is no political platform for atheists that is consistent among atheists in the world, or agenda.
Most atheists strive for separation of church and state, and for the most part, in the US and Canada, atheists are winning the "culture war" because the courts cater to the common sense that goes along with separation of church and state. And when it is a close call, atheists have been fighting and usually win.
We don't need a lobby group because most of these fights are state or local and we win without a major lobby.
And when atheists win, the whole population wins (though many don't realize it).
If you don't want separation of church and state, move to an Arab Muslim country.
Blah, Blah, Blah!
Richard Dawkins point, the basis for your blather, is effectively correct... People with special needs and tons of money can buy more equality and tolerance than others without money!
Whether this exorbitant largess orginates on 'K' St. or 'Pray' St. is irrelevant... it is illegal to make 1 group (religion) more equal than another group (secularist).
Only a paranoid religious delusionists, with tens of thousands of houses of worship to choose from, could feel persecuted and threatened by a handful of vocal 'angry atheists'!
Beware the religious pretense of tolerance and choice... Do secularists want oak or maple fire with their penance?
If you want gov't & religion out of your lives... and we all should for they are the 2 greatest antagonists to personal freedom & the rule of law... then truth to power must never take a back seat to modern mythology and misrepresentation!
Remind me again who failed to find the promise of equality... that all men/women are created equal... IN THE CONSTITUION to be NOT SELF-EVIDENT?
Oh, yeah it was Gov't & Religion... again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again... for time eternal?
hmmm,
I am sure there are no Anti-Semites on this thread,
No-one on this thread who hates the Jew because
they're, well of Jewish.
No Muslims on this thread believe that The Protocols of Zion (a required text in many Muslim countries) is an authentic document.
No-one posting here believes that Israel should be destroyed ASAP.
Non one here supports the forced expulsion of Jews from entire Arab world.
No one justifies killing any Jew in the rightous cause of Palestinian liberation.
No one here believes that Jews are responsible for 9/11, WW1,WW2,all problems in Arab world,blood libel, evil Jews taking over the world.
When this indeed be true there will be no need for AIPAC.
Until them my friends, using a British expression:" Sod off, wankers."
Hey Ludi, no one here WORTH READING believes any of those things you wrote.
There are lots of Republican trolls here who are getting strange sexual cravings reading your list, but who cares about them?
"Sod off, wankers"? Oh boy, you are so clever. Just because I am in favor of the things you are also in favor of, does not mean I don't think you're a dumbass--- 'cause you are!
When we are children, we are entirely dominated by non-rational factors. We just follow and copy our parents and others around us and the environment without consiously and reasonably arriving at our opinions and intentions. Throughout our life we mature, and slowly and steadily, reason and rationality take a larger and larger role.
(Of course I'm speaking of the general trend. There's huge individual variation, with some of the population never becoming very rational.)
This same trend towards a greater role for rationality (vs blindly following an authority or group) can be seen at the level of cultures maturing historically, or species evolving.
Therefore: while it may be true that immature people or groups or cultures are mostly driven by unexamined emotions... I'd say that the trend is towards the increasing role of rationality. And rational choices, such as deciding to identify as an atheist, may become more and more significant as we mature as individuals and as a society.
You must be logged in to reply to this comment.
Posted October 16, 2007 | 12:58 PM (EST)