Comments on KALLISTI: An Apple in Pandemonium: Some Rough Responses to THE GOD DELUSION

I shall patiently wait for the second part of this...

2009-10-21T02:37:19.329-04:00

I shall patiently wait for the second part of this entry after you've read all of The God Delusion. :)

It is one thing for Dawkins to criticize Judeo-Chr...

2009-10-18T14:54:10.180-04:00

It is one thing for Dawkins to criticize Judeo-Christian religious traditions and their western proponents. It is also, in my opinion, reasonable to generalize from Judeo-Christianity to the other "Abrahamic" religion, Islam. Also, even judged purely on its own merits, it is hardly difficult to make a case for Islam as an inherently violent and intolerant religion.

Even though Dawkins is essentially correct in his assessment of the Monotheistic faiths, his understanding of them is appallingly superficial and his analysis, as a result, is childishly simplistic.

But as soon as Dawkins moves away from the Abrahamic religions his views are transparently eurocentric. Nowhere in any of his writings does Dawkins ever provide a serious discussion of Hinduism and Buddhism, for example. His view of these religions is clearly that they are not to be taken as seriously as Christianity -- in fact, that they are not to be taken seriously at all.

But this goes beyond the issue of religion. According to Dawkins' conception of the so-called "scientific revolution" of the 17th century, the very ability to think rationally was discovered, and only very recently, by white people. Priviledging white people (and their culture) with a superior ability to reason is one of the hallmarks of white racism.

If one looks at the great figures of the scientific revolution, you will find that they were all deeply religious. Isaac Newton was a Hermeticist who studied Astrology and practiced Alchemy. Johannes Kepler was a Pythagorean (and his mother was accused of being a Witch!). Robert Boyle was, like Newton, an avid Alechmist. Joseph Priestly was a Unitarian minister (in fact he was a founding member of that denomination). And it turns out that Galileo learned all about the "experimental method" at his father's knee: his father being a Pythagorean philosopher, and Pythagreans having advocated careful experimentation to elucidate natural phenomenon for over 2000 years in Galileo's time.

Tthe concept of the "scientific revolution" was actually constructed during the 18th century by ideologues who selectively ignored all the Alchemy, Astrology, Pythagoreanism etc. The men who concocted this myth made "modern science" part of the core of their ideological justification for European Imperialism, which at the time was well on its way to turning the majority of the human population into the colonial subjects of a small handful of European "Great Powers". It was important that the people of these conquering nations be seen as inherently superior, and, therefore, the rightful rulers of the world.

In sum, Richard Dawkins has merely added a new wrinkle to Kipling's "White Man's Burden", namely, that in addition to all of the other tasks that must be carried out to civilize the dark savages of the world must be added the need to educate these superstitious idolaters about the one true God: Science.

I don't think Dawkins is a racist. Maybe you could...

2009-10-17T16:44:58.127-04:00

I don't think Dawkins is a racist. Maybe you could make a case for him being a cultural imperialist or something like that but he's hardly a racist. Here's "race realist" Steve Sailer tut-tut-ing Dawkins' views on race. Also worth noting is that modern "race realist" types usually think Asians are more intelligent than Europeans.

In any case, I agree with both of you that the New Atheists tend to excessively generalize about religion based on what they know of the Abrahamic religions. Hitchens has an absurd little chapter in his book on how there is "no Eastern solution". Sam Harris is better in that he actually does know a thing or two about Buddhism.

I had a long discussion with atheist author Richard Carrier on paganism and atheism in the comment thread to a post on Taoism. I made some of the same points Annyikha makes in response to Dawkins - pagans are united by shared ritual rather than shared theology, pantheism is compatible with paganism, you don't have to commit to any particular theology to be a pagan etc. Hylomorphic phrases some of the same thoughts in a more elegant way. But I sometimes wonder if we don't concede too much to the atheists with this approach. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing other approaches.

I know about Dawkins' rejection of freedom of reli...

2009-10-16T21:18:08.279-04:00

I know about Dawkins' rejection of freedom of religion, and the unnecessary smear campaign against Francis Collins. That is the main reason why I dislike him. I would have actually linked to your writings on that (because I followed that primarily through your blog --- thanks for covering it!), only I stupidly forgot to. In his book, however, he states that religion shouldn't be used as a basis of discrimination --- so I wonder how he reconciles his behavior with what he professed, or if he had a change of heart because he thought he was popular enough to get away with denouncing Collins.

Where does Dawkins make racist comments, or what statements can you point to that indicate his belief in white superiority? Did you do a post on this?

Dawkins is, in essence, a racist. He freely admits...

2009-10-16T20:05:30.310-04:00

Dawkins is, in essence, a racist. He freely admits his lack of knowledge concerning the religious traditions of non-European peoples - other than Islam. His assumption is that people who aren't white naturally could never possibly have religious ideas that are superior to those of white people. Of course his ignorance of religious traditions from the classical world far exceeds even his ignorance of contemporary non-monotheistic religious traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

Also, Dawkins explicitly rejects the very concept of freedom of religion. In the recent controversy concerning Francis Collins (whose scientific career is far more distinguished that Dawkins) he openly abandoned one of the cornerstones of democracy and called for Collins to be blocked from holding a government appointed position purely on the basis of Collins religion (he is, gasp, a Presbyterian).