Manny’s review of The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution > Likes and Comments
235 likes · Like
Thank you, Manny. This is the first time Dawkins has sounded appealing. :-)
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ that it is science that is explaining this the right way. The point to the bird being your brother is philosophical and proving it genetically or evolutionarily (is that a word?) is irrelevant. The philosophical point is completely legitimate, it means something different, it means something more important (I consider). To suggest that this is the 'wrong' way of seeing it, the way in which a theologian or a philosopher does, is to reveal how ignorant he is outside his field.
It is a pity there are so many scientists in the world who think there is nothing to know except science. The world would be a better place if this wasn't their credo.
Hazel, I'm glad if I managed to convince you that Dawkins isn't all bad :)
Not, I don't think I said that evolution is the "right" way to see this. I absolutely grant you that there are other valid standpoints. But surely it isn't reasonable to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that you literally are related to all other living things on Earth, and that we're all part of the same family? You may consider it less important, but irrelevant??
Manny wrote: "Not, I don't think I said that evolution is the "right" way to see this. I absolutely grant you that there are other valid standpoints. But surely it isn't reasonable to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that you literally are related to all other living things on Earth, and that we're all part of the same family? You may consider it less important, but irrelevant??"
I wasn't suggesting you were so narrow-minded, but that your man is. You said: 'As Dawkins says at the end: it's not so much that he disagrees with religious people, it's more that they're saying it the wrong way.'
The rest of my previous comment stands. To prove genetic relationships is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the religious or philosophical understanding of the bird as family. The philosophers are saying something completely different, not the same thing in the wrong way.
In the process he has attempted to diminish an important idea about how to live together in harmony. What a shame. Scientists really shouldn't be allowed to talk about things they don't understand!
Oh, and I really don't understand this last part of your review. It's not that he disagrees with religious people? What does that mean? In practice?
Oh dear. I'm being rude about scientists. I'm trying so hard with The Trouble with Physics, but the bottom line is that it is difficult not to be quite disappointed with them and part of the reason for that is their extreme distaste for considering anything outside their field.
It is remarkable to me to read about string theory and its religious overtones and find that the same people utterly scoff at other things that equally can't be proven. At the same time I feel I don't understand enough string theory or theology to enter the fray in a meaningful way.
So I'm frustrated, irritated, and taking pot shots.
Oh, and I really don't understand this last part of your review. It's not that he disagrees with religious people? What does that mean? In practice?
That he's just as religious as they are, but wants them to convert to his sect. And he's a good preacher, who moreover has truth on his side... what's WRONG with them???
To prove genetic relationships is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the religious or philosophical understanding of the bird as family. The philosophers are saying something completely different, not the same thing in the wrong way.
Well, that's what you say. Why do you consider it so clear that this is irrelevant? You're just making a statement without any supporting evidence.
If you stop and think about it, you'll surely agree that, on the whole, you are more likely to feel close to living creatures which according to evolutionary theory are closely related to you. You probably feel closer to a human than you do to a cat. You feel closer to a cat than you do to a goldfish. And you feel closer to a goldfish than you do to a worm. Are you really sure that the family relationships have nothing to do with it?
Manny wrote: "Oh, and I really don't understand this last part of your review. It's not that he disagrees with religious people? What does that mean? In practice?
That he's just as religious as they are, but wa..."
That's the reason I've avoided Dawkins. Does he know that he's a fundamentalist?
Manny wrote: "To prove genetic relationships is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the religious or philosophical understanding of the bird as family. The philosophers are saying something completely different, not the same..."Well, that's what you say. Why do you consider it so clear that this is irrelevant? You're just making a statement without any supporting evidence.
If you stop and think about it, you'll surely agree that, on the whole, you are more likely to feel close to living creatures which according to evolutionary theory are closely related to you. You probably feel closer to a human than you do to a cat. You feel closer to a cat than you do to a goldfish. And you feel closer to a goldfish than you do to a worm. Are you really sure that the family relationships have nothing to do with it?"
Manny. That is the whole point. The philosophical/theological way of looking at things is importantly to STOP or balance your thinking like that. It is no wonder that evolution theory has been linked with Nazi doctrine. We shouldn't think that the bird is more different, any more than we should think that the black man over there is more different. We are all the same. We are living things. We are equal in our inequality.
Of course we all have a natural tendency to save the person not the animal, the neighbour not the stranger, etc. But that is exactly why we have these great philosophers pointing out how important it is, at the same time, to see everything as your brother, as something to respect and look after. Hey, they are just talking about how we live on earth and look after it and everything on it.
I don't understand what you mean, I need supporting evidence???? It is perfectly obvious that the religious/theological perspective is intended to be more or less precisely the opposite of what Dawkins thinks...and that it is super important to how we live in the world. In fact Dawkins is emphasising what is different about us compared with a bird, by showing us what is the same. The philosophical point that we are all living creatures is terribly important.
I've been considering the issue of intellectual bullying lately and it is hard to go past Dawkins. I am so uneasy about his way of dealing with what he doesn't like.
Look at this story: http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/mr-stei...
The essence of it is that Ben Stein was supposed to be present at the University of Vermont to receive an honorary degree.
I’ve spent a bit of time recently looking at ID on the net and it doesn’t surprise me that I find its protagonists and their supporters rather hard to stomach. Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to exist intellectually? Well, no. I’d say the same thing about David Irving. Having finally listened to him talk, it was no great surprise to find he was repugnant in every way, but we still let him talk and I can’t imagine it would be better if we didn’t. I’m most uneasy about the idea that people in Germany are not allowed to, for example, buy Mein Kampf. How can that be the way to stop the next (or ongoing) proliferation of Nazi ideas?
In fact the existence of the Internet helps in some ways to counter intellectual bullying. It permits ID, for example, to exist despite the claims of the scientific community against it. People have the opportunity, even though the scientific community has tried to squash any idea of free speech in relation to ID, to look at it, measure it, decide if they like it. If it is rejected, this is BY FAR the best way. If it isn't rejected, that does actually mean something!
This next sentence is pure speculation on my part...In the case of ID, one can only regret that this situation has perhaps only arisen in the first place due to the assault lately on religion by science. Strange when one considers historically how many eminent scientists from Newton to Einstein have believed in God.
As I looked around the internet, generally disgusted at both what I read about ID and what I read against it, I did find a couple of genuninely interesting discussions. Rare as hen’s teeth, if I can say that without offending the Darwinists in the audience.
Notably, look at John McWhorter interviewing Michael Behe. Now, John McWhorter, in contrast to any science academic I’ve been able to discover, treats Behe and his ideas with respect. This caused an enormous hostility on the part of his audience. To my astonishment, as I follow what happened next, the interview was pulled from bloggingheads and this notice put up:
So much for free speech. So much for intellectual honesty. If the audience doesn’t like it, we’ll pull it.
Then this appeared:
A link to their policy is here: http://bloggingheads.tv/policy/
You will find the whole interview between McWhorter and Behe here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075 Oh. But if it has been pulled again, you can also find it here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intell...
I simply cannot understand how this is right.
I'm reminded of those in India who will not kill so much as an ant on the ground and walk along gently sweeping in front of them. It is a school of thought, isn't it? Not one I'd adhere to, but it is there and followed to a greater or lesser extent around the world. I guess animal activists tend to see animals as being at least as important as humans in a way you and I would not. Ditto vegetarians.
Me, I've just had chicken soup for tea. So do I think humans are more important than chooks? Absolutely! But only if I can think at the same time that we are all brothers. I think you need both even as you are spooning your brother, in this case, into your mouth.
Me, I've just had chicken soup for tea. So do I think humans are more important than chooks? Absolutely! But only if I can think at the same time that we are all brothers.
Surely this is having your chicken and eating it?
Look at this story.
The essence of it is that Ben Stein was supposed to be present at the University of Vermont to receive an honorary degree.
I'm all in favour of free speech, and I'm not suggesting that Creationists should be gagged. By all means let them talk as much as they want on the Internet. But I also agree with Dawkins that it's quite inappropriate for proponents of crank science, which is what this is, to be given honorary degrees.
And I'm not surprised that Dawkins didn't like the imputation that evolution, which is just a factual scientific theory, was somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Let me see, was the theory of gravity responsible for the Nazi bombing raids on London? After all, if there were no gravity, then the bombs wouldn't have been able to fall.
Of course, if there were serious doubt about the reality of evolution, then there might be something in his argument. But there's barely more doubt about evolution than there is about gravity. Now that we're able to sequence the DNA from many species and compare the similarities and differences, it's surely been demonstrated conclusively. What kind of wiggle room is left?
Hazel wrote: "That's the reason I've avoided Dawkins. Does he know that he's a fundamentalist?"
Um... I doubt he would use that exact word. But with suitable rephrasing, he might agree with you...
I take issue with "science" having attacked religion. Individual scientists may have but that is a different thing altogether.
I'd also like to point out that "fundamental" or high energy-density physics is only one branch of physics and not necessarily representative of physicists generally. Most branches of physics currently being researched do not have such a dearth of results, which is an enormous part of the problem regarding string theory and their rivals.
Manny wrote: "Me, I've just had chicken soup for tea. So do I think humans are more important than chooks? Absolutely! But only if I can think at the same time that we are all brothers.
Surely this is having yo..."
I think the point about Stein is that he's done a bunch of perfectly normal things one might get an honorary degree for. He wasn't, as far as I understand it, getting it for being anti-Evolution. If that is so, then does somebody have to come up to scratch in all areas before we award him on the basis of something worthy of it?
Manny, as for Dawkins not liking the Holocaust suggestion, of which I've only seen reference, is this any different to everything that I gather Dawkins attributes to Religion in a bad way?
I think all of them are mostly disgracefully behaved!
Robert wrote: "I take issue with "science" having attacked religion. Individual scientists may have but that is a different thing altogether...."
Well, I did suggest that was speculative. It is what I'm feeling from my reading, but I haven't done nearly enough of that yet to feel sure of anything. It is very confusing trying to follow a slinging mud match and extracting the odd bit of useful information from it.
I think the point about Stein is that he's done a bunch of perfectly normal things one might get an honorary degree for. He wasn't, as far as I understand it, getting it for being anti-Evolution.
Well, I don't know the details of the story. He does seem to have maintained a high profile as being a supporter of ID, so I can see why Dawkins might have jumped to conclusions. Especially if Stein quoted him out of context in a program which tried to link evolutionary theory to Nazi ideology.
This problem is easily solved by not handing out honorary Degrees...
Robert wrote: "This problem is easily solved by not handing out honorary Degrees..."
Oh come on, there are some good ones. Did you see Private Eye's Latin speech in connection with Kathy Lette's honorary degree last month?
Here's the thing; people get honorary Degrees because they are regarded as good at something - since they are respected in their field already they don't need the qualification so the honorary Degree serves no function. They are either controvercial or ignored.
Um, no - I don't read Private Eye, don't know Latin and don't recognise the name Kathy Lette! Talk about striking out...
Kathy Lette writes erotic comic novels for women, though I haven't read any of them. If someone has done so, maybe they can comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of granting her an honorary degree.
I would certainly be delighted to see an honorary degree awarded to the person who wrote the good novels in Brigade Mondaine, my favourite erotic trash series...
Manny, just wanted to stick up a bit for The Selfish Gene. I found it just as fascinating as The Ancestors Tale, and didn't think he spent very much time at all attacking religion. Though, I read it before the popularity of atheism began to rise, and so maybe I wasn't paying attention to those parts in that context. But as someone who was only vaguely familiar with evolution, The Selfish Gene was a, to borrow a phrase from Dawkins, consciousness raising book.
notgettingenough, you keep speaking about philosophers in opposition to scientists, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Philosophy not built up on the shoulders of science is empty philosophy. Read some of the old philosophers, and as brilliant as they were for their time, most of their ideas are laughably silly now. They just didn't have the scientific knowledge to ground their theories in reality.
You talk about living in harmony with all animals, and the the point that we're all living creatures, but without philosophy based on science those statements are meaningless. The fact that science tells us that animals with highly complex nervous systems can feel pain has led me to be a vegetarian, and the same scientific knowledge allows me to eat vegetables and not feel bad. To not become overly emotional if I step on a bug or destroy a plant (I don't do these things on purpose mind you), because I have something to stand on when I say these forms of life probably do not have any sort of conscious experience.
I really don't want to turn this into a religious argument, but it's worth pointing that religions over time have condoned all sorts of atrocious behavior because of "philosophies" that like you mention above, view the black man as unequal. Now, we don't NEED science to tell us that all humans deserve the same freedoms, but science can surely come in and say, "yes, the genetic differences between humans of different races is insignificant, and there is no justification for cruelty to another race or the idea that they are less human".
In fact, I loved The Selfish Gene too! I keep meaning to post a review, but haven't got around to doing so yet.
And about racism: one of the most fascinating segments in The Ancestor's Tale is about that exact topic. Did you know that other species, e.g. certain kinds of grasshoppers, can also be racists? There are two subgroupings in the species that look a bit different. They can mate with each other and produce viable offspring, but for some reason they don't want to. Dawkins spends some time discussing why this might be. In a strange way, it's comforting to know that we aren't the only assholes on the planet...
Greg wrote: "Manny, just wanted to stick up a bit for The Selfish Gene. I found it just as fascinating as The Ancestors Tale, and didn't think he spent very much time at all attacking religion. Though, I read i..."
But Greg, Do you think we need science to tell us, for example, that an animal feels pain? I don't know the history of science so I make no claims, but I'm surprised it isn't intuitively obvious! Do we need science to tell us to live in harmony with the world? I don't understand that, sorry. It is intuitively obvious and/or experientially (is that a word? It's late and I'm sleepy) obvious. I bet farmers first practised rotation not because science explained it but because they knew it was right...medicine used leeches because they knew they worked.
I dare say there is lots in the world that is good as a result of science rejecting what it does not understand, but leeches is a classic example of the opposite. Good practice rejected for a long time because science didn't have an explanation.
I'm not trying to attack science, but I have this idea at the moment that science - some scientists? - are involved in a tirade against religion that doesn't make sense. To pick on the worst aspect of religion is no more acceptable than to pick on the worst aspects of science. Religion and science do not need to be enemies.
Like I say, this is only my sense of what I'm reading and observing. Fist impressions.
While not suggesting for one moment it is even remotely close to how I live, the idea that we can treat life that is conscious differently from how we treat conscious life - what, with less care and concern, is that a fair way to put it? - has to be dubious, doesn't it? Would seas, rivers, soil the world over be in such ecological trouble if we didn't see this difference, which you say is attributable to science?
Having been reading a bit about scientific methodology lately, just enough not to understand it, has me wondering....
Good night!
I love Dawkins, though I think when he puts down religion he's completely missing the point, as far as I can see. He looks at religion as an inferior form of science, and the idea that it could be something entirely different from science doesn't seem to occur to him at all. Anyway, as a scientist he's top notch. As a religion-basher he never says anything that even approaches bashing my own religion, and the things he does say, about religion being improperly applied by some people who refuse to believe in natural selection, and the fact that all life on Earth is descended from the same initial forms, I entirely agree with, and incidentally, so does my religion.
Everything true is part of my religion. That teaches me that there's no conflict whatsoever between my religion and science.
I think Dawkins does sometimes tend to attribute some poor choices that are general features of human nature specifically to religion without good cause. People are religious, they're also human and imperfect. Post hoc does not mean propter hoc. If you eliminate religion entirely, as for instance the Soviets famously almost managed to do, you're still left with a lot of ugly behavior, jingoism, nationalism, racism, the whole thing... so it wasn't really religion's fault after all, was it? In fact, it's just possible that religion helps on the whole rather than hurting, though I can't swear to that in general.
It's certainly true that my religion has made me a better person. It's also true that religious people in general do more humanitarian work, donate more time, effort, money, and sweat equity to good causes than people on average. I know I personally am much more involved in worldsaving efforts and concerned with averting human extinction now than back when I was an atheist. My guess is that's generally true, though obviously not in every case. So when you add us all up, taking into account the extremists, the anti-intellectuals, the tower topplers and suicide bombers along with the people who work at soup kitchens, build houses, care for the sick, and all that, I think it comes out at least somewhat positive, though that is arguably an article of faith.
Tatiana wrote: "I love Dawkins, though I think when he puts down religion he's completely missing the point, as far as I can see. He looks at religion as an inferior form of science, and the idea that it could be..."
What a great comment, Tatiana. I no longer have to think about how to put things that you have put far better than I might have.
"But Greg, Do you think we need science to tell us, for example, that an animal feels pain? I don't know the history of science so I make no claims, but I'm surprised it isn't intuitively obvious!"
I'm glad it's obvious to you, but it's not quite so obvious to the world at large. If it was, would humans really treat animals so terribly on such a large scale? (i guess humans treat other humans pretty horribly too.) Look at our factory farming system. Animals are routinely tortured and live in abysmal conditions. The workers don't care, the owners don't care, the investors don't care, the government doesn't care, and all of us who give our dollars to this system don't care, so who cares? Religious institutions aren't out there lobbying to treat all gods children humanely. The only religion that I know of that has prescriptions for how to treat animals for slaughter is Judaism, but even the kosher laws haven't been able to keep up with the changing times. This is a problem, in that religions are slow to change(minority rights, women's rights, gay rights) do to an inherent push back by the orthodoxy.
"Do we need science to tell us to live in harmony with the world? "
We need somebody! I don't think this is intuitively obvious, yet again, evidenced by how we treat each other, other life, and our planet. The statement doesn't exist in a vacuum, it needs to based on something. Though I agree with you, stating it doesn't make it so, and there are plenty of people who would disagree with that statement.
" I bet farmers first practised rotation not because science explained it but because they knew it was right...medicine used leeches because they knew they worked."
Sure, humans have engaged in all sorts of activities for thousands of years that we didn't fully understand. It shouldn't be surprising that we have been able to stumble upon things that worked without using the scientific method. But the problem is that very often, we don't understand WHY something works the way it does, so we surround it with all sorts of superstition. By studying it with the scientific method we can determine the mechanisms of how or why it works, and improve upon it, get rid of the stuff that may be useless or actively harmful. This is what the enterprise of science has brought us. And remember, scientists used to be called natural philosophers. It was an experimental way of philosophizing. It wasn't till the what, 17 or 1800s when the term scientist came about.
I am very happy to agree that science and religion need not be enemies.
In the Soviet case one could view it as one institution attempting to eliminate another in order to have better control of the populace. Much of what people object to about religion seems to me to be an objection to institutions (Churches) dictating terms to individuals. The same objections could be made about many types of human institution so in the end they seem to be objections about human nature...
Tatiana, I quite agree with your comments. I don't really think The Ancestor's Tale has anything negative to say about religion in the broad sense, only Intelligent Design. To me, it's much more about how science can in fact help religious people to understand fundamental truths about the unity of all life at an intellectual as well as a spiritual level. It's a very good book.
Robert wrote: "I'd also like to point out that "fundamental" or high energy-density physics is only one branch of physics and not necessarily representative of physicists generally."
I can't decide if this comment was intentionally hilarious or not. But I laughed out loud anyway.
Interesting thread.
Very good review, Manny. I don't often comment on your reviews, because what can one say? This time, though, I heard you very clearly.
Well done, Manny. I have found that Dawkins often tends to rub me the wrong way for subtle reasons -- but this book was so different in the ways you so eloquently stated. Pulling life together into a single story resonates with me.
Hey Greg,
I'm not one to ever defend religion, but per your mention of Judaism as the only religion you know of that has rules about eating animals...you might be interested in looking at Jainism, an offshoot of Hinduism. Jainist tenets are for peace and non-violence towards all living beings, and they practice a strict form of vegetarianism.
According to Wikipedia (our Bible of modern Truth):
There are five basic ethical principles (vows) prescribed.
* Non-violence (Ahimsa) - to cause no harm to living beings.
* Truth (Satya) - to always speak the truth in a harmless manner.
* Non-stealing (Asteya) - to not take anything that is not willingly given.
* Celibacy (Brahmacarya) - to not indulge in sensual pleasures.
* Non-possession (Aparigraha) - to detach from people, places, and material things.
As a fairly lightweight Buddhist (i.e. one who reads about it and occasionally meditates), i think Buddhism has a strong vegetarian strain as well although it's not something proscribed since Buddhism is generally not didactic like Western religions are.
Has anyone else read Thomas Disch's wonderful short story Ingmar Bergman Meets God? Bergman is surprised by God's message which, if I recall correctly, is something like "exercise regularly and get plenty of vitamin C".
"Is that it, Lord?" he asks.
"I've always been very big on dietary advice," explains the Ruler of the Universe.
Now that I think about it, is there anyone who could reasonably claim to be both a great scientist and a great philosopher? I guess Leibniz might get his name put forward. Though personally I think he was at least as crap a philosopher as Dawkins. Monads... puh-lease.
David, you're absolutely right. Let me amend my statement above to "out of religions who don't have prescriptions against eating meat, Judaism is the only one I know that has rules for how animals can be killed and eaten."
Isaiah, I'd forgotten that Descartes also made substantial contributions to optics! Good point. What an incredible guy.
Greg and David: What about Islam? Rules for halal butchery?
Manny, I don't know anything about it, but if so, I stand corrected!
i think it's interesting how it was Descartes (unless my memory of college Philosophy 101 is faulty), who claimed that animals felt no pain, and even a horse could be thrown in a fire without any compunction. i believe it had something to do with the way he defined a soul, and since the Christian god only gave souls to humans, animals weren't permitted to feel pain. i don't remember the details of how he justified this, but he said the simulation of pain behavior by animals was just an illusion.
Yes, definitely Descartes... was just thinking about that myself! But with reference to Not's arguments, I'm not sure which column to put him in... should we blame science, because he was a scientist and came to this appalling conclusion, or praise it for later determining that it was all nonsense?
Is Descartes considered a scientist?
Also, Descartes thought the soul interfaced with the human body through the Pineal gland. I don't know much about animal physiology, but if they don't have pineal glands I can see why he would've argued that they don't have souls and thus don't feel pain.
I would say that Descartes's lasting contribution to human thought is algebraic geometry, with Cartesian Doubt coming an honourable second. But he made some good discoveries in optics too - look him up!
Surely a lot of animals must have a pineal gland? We tend to share most of our genetic software with our closer cousins...
he came to that conclusion, i recall, as part of his philosophical analysis not through his scientific research. So i guess the point would be that just because you're a philosopher, doesn't mean you are any more sensitive about compassion than a scientist is.
It was Einstein who said, "Our task must be to free ourselves ... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty." and "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
I agree. Philosophers are just people - some of them compassionate, some less so. Though if there's a careful study that demonstrates a correlation between philosophical understanding and compassion, I'll be happy to retract that statement! Looks like there would be some tricky methodological questions, though...
All scientists are philosophers - Natural Philosophers.
So - when I'm joking nobody gets it and when I'm serious, Isiaih laughs...
Robert, try replacing "physics" with "Islam" or something comparable in the sentence I quoted, and you'll see why I thought it was so funny.
back to top
message 1:
by
Hazel
(last edited Apr 08, 2010 12:16AM)
(new)
Apr 08, 2010 12:16AM
Thank you, Manny. This is the first time Dawkins has sounded appealing. :-)
reply
|
flag
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ that it is science that is explaining this the right way. The point to the bird being your brother is philosophical and proving it genetically or evolutionarily (is that a word?) is irrelevant. The philosophical point is completely legitimate, it means something different, it means something more important (I consider). To suggest that this is the 'wrong' way of seeing it, the way in which a theologian or a philosopher does, is to reveal how ignorant he is outside his field.It is a pity there are so many scientists in the world who think there is nothing to know except science. The world would be a better place if this wasn't their credo.
Hazel, I'm glad if I managed to convince you that Dawkins isn't all bad :)Not, I don't think I said that evolution is the "right" way to see this. I absolutely grant you that there are other valid standpoints. But surely it isn't reasonable to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that you literally are related to all other living things on Earth, and that we're all part of the same family? You may consider it less important, but irrelevant??
Manny wrote: "Not, I don't think I said that evolution is the "right" way to see this. I absolutely grant you that there are other valid standpoints. But surely it isn't reasonable to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that you literally are related to all other living things on Earth, and that we're all part of the same family? You may consider it less important, but irrelevant??"I wasn't suggesting you were so narrow-minded, but that your man is. You said: 'As Dawkins says at the end: it's not so much that he disagrees with religious people, it's more that they're saying it the wrong way.'
The rest of my previous comment stands. To prove genetic relationships is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the religious or philosophical understanding of the bird as family. The philosophers are saying something completely different, not the same thing in the wrong way.
In the process he has attempted to diminish an important idea about how to live together in harmony. What a shame. Scientists really shouldn't be allowed to talk about things they don't understand!
Oh, and I really don't understand this last part of your review. It's not that he disagrees with religious people? What does that mean? In practice?
Oh dear. I'm being rude about scientists. I'm trying so hard with The Trouble with Physics, but the bottom line is that it is difficult not to be quite disappointed with them and part of the reason for that is their extreme distaste for considering anything outside their field.It is remarkable to me to read about string theory and its religious overtones and find that the same people utterly scoff at other things that equally can't be proven. At the same time I feel I don't understand enough string theory or theology to enter the fray in a meaningful way.
So I'm frustrated, irritated, and taking pot shots.
Oh, and I really don't understand this last part of your review. It's not that he disagrees with religious people? What does that mean? In practice?That he's just as religious as they are, but wants them to convert to his sect. And he's a good preacher, who moreover has truth on his side... what's WRONG with them???
To prove genetic relationships is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the religious or philosophical understanding of the bird as family. The philosophers are saying something completely different, not the same thing in the wrong way.Well, that's what you say. Why do you consider it so clear that this is irrelevant? You're just making a statement without any supporting evidence.
If you stop and think about it, you'll surely agree that, on the whole, you are more likely to feel close to living creatures which according to evolutionary theory are closely related to you. You probably feel closer to a human than you do to a cat. You feel closer to a cat than you do to a goldfish. And you feel closer to a goldfish than you do to a worm. Are you really sure that the family relationships have nothing to do with it?
Manny wrote: "Oh, and I really don't understand this last part of your review. It's not that he disagrees with religious people? What does that mean? In practice?That he's just as religious as they are, but wa..."
That's the reason I've avoided Dawkins. Does he know that he's a fundamentalist?
Manny wrote: "To prove genetic relationships is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the religious or philosophical understanding of the bird as family. The philosophers are saying something completely different, not the same..."Well, that's what you say. Why do you consider it so clear that this is irrelevant? You're just making a statement without any supporting evidence.If you stop and think about it, you'll surely agree that, on the whole, you are more likely to feel close to living creatures which according to evolutionary theory are closely related to you. You probably feel closer to a human than you do to a cat. You feel closer to a cat than you do to a goldfish. And you feel closer to a goldfish than you do to a worm. Are you really sure that the family relationships have nothing to do with it?"
Manny. That is the whole point. The philosophical/theological way of looking at things is importantly to STOP or balance your thinking like that. It is no wonder that evolution theory has been linked with Nazi doctrine. We shouldn't think that the bird is more different, any more than we should think that the black man over there is more different. We are all the same. We are living things. We are equal in our inequality.
Of course we all have a natural tendency to save the person not the animal, the neighbour not the stranger, etc. But that is exactly why we have these great philosophers pointing out how important it is, at the same time, to see everything as your brother, as something to respect and look after. Hey, they are just talking about how we live on earth and look after it and everything on it.
I don't understand what you mean, I need supporting evidence???? It is perfectly obvious that the religious/theological perspective is intended to be more or less precisely the opposite of what Dawkins thinks...and that it is super important to how we live in the world. In fact Dawkins is emphasising what is different about us compared with a bird, by showing us what is the same. The philosophical point that we are all living creatures is terribly important.
I've been considering the issue of intellectual bullying lately and it is hard to go past Dawkins. I am so uneasy about his way of dealing with what he doesn't like.Look at this story: http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/mr-stei...
The essence of it is that Ben Stein was supposed to be present at the University of Vermont to receive an honorary degree.
The intensity of the scientific community’s reaction is plain from Dawkins’ email to Fogel sent Sunday. Dawkins called the invitation to Stein “lamentable,” described him as a “notoriously mendacious propagandist for creationism,” and warned that UVM’s “reputation is in danger of being besmirched” by a commencement ceremony featuring Stein.
A few hours later, Fogel replied that as a great admirer of Dawkins he was “honored” to see a personal email from him in his inbox ” but very sorry indeed” about its content.
Though the University had “recently learned” that Stein would be unable to come, Fogel said, he assured Dawkins that Stein’s ” remarks would address the global economic crisis and that he would speak from his widely acknowledged area of expertise on the economy.”
That wasn’t quite an assurance that Stein wouldn’t say a word about evolution or about science in general. But it seemed to be heading in that direction.
Either way, Dawkins replied, thanking Fogel for his “extremely gracious letter,” and adding that he could not “disguise my gladness that Ben Stein will not be going to Vermont.”
I’ve spent a bit of time recently looking at ID on the net and it doesn’t surprise me that I find its protagonists and their supporters rather hard to stomach. Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to exist intellectually? Well, no. I’d say the same thing about David Irving. Having finally listened to him talk, it was no great surprise to find he was repugnant in every way, but we still let him talk and I can’t imagine it would be better if we didn’t. I’m most uneasy about the idea that people in Germany are not allowed to, for example, buy Mein Kampf. How can that be the way to stop the next (or ongoing) proliferation of Nazi ideas?
In fact the existence of the Internet helps in some ways to counter intellectual bullying. It permits ID, for example, to exist despite the claims of the scientific community against it. People have the opportunity, even though the scientific community has tried to squash any idea of free speech in relation to ID, to look at it, measure it, decide if they like it. If it is rejected, this is BY FAR the best way. If it isn't rejected, that does actually mean something!
This next sentence is pure speculation on my part...In the case of ID, one can only regret that this situation has perhaps only arisen in the first place due to the assault lately on religion by science. Strange when one considers historically how many eminent scientists from Newton to Einstein have believed in God.
As I looked around the internet, generally disgusted at both what I read about ID and what I read against it, I did find a couple of genuninely interesting discussions. Rare as hen’s teeth, if I can say that without offending the Darwinists in the audience.
Notably, look at John McWhorter interviewing Michael Behe. Now, John McWhorter, in contrast to any science academic I’ve been able to discover, treats Behe and his ideas with respect. This caused an enormous hostility on the part of his audience. To my astonishment, as I follow what happened next, the interview was pulled from bloggingheads and this notice put up:
John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.
So much for free speech. So much for intellectual honesty. If the audience doesn’t like it, we’ll pull it.
Then this appeared:
Update from Robert Wright, editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads.tv, Aug. 30: This diavlog has now been re-posted. The decision to remove it from the site was made by BhTV staff while I was away and unavailable for consultation. (Yes, even in a wired world it's possible to take yourself off the grid. Here's how I did it.) It's impossible to say for sure whether, in the heat of the moment, I would have made a decision different from the staff's decision. But on reflection I've decided that removing this particular diavlog from the site is hard to justify by any general principle that should govern our future conduct. In other words, it's not a precedent I'd want to live with. At the same time, I can imagine circumstances under which a diavlog would warrant removal from the site. So this episode has usefully spurred me and the BhTV staff to try to articulate some rules of the road for this sort of thing. Within a week, the results will be posted, along with some related thoughts on the whole idea behind Bloggingheads.tv, here.
A link to their policy is here: http://bloggingheads.tv/policy/
You will find the whole interview between McWhorter and Behe here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075 Oh. But if it has been pulled again, you can also find it here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intell...
I simply cannot understand how this is right.
I'm reminded of those in India who will not kill so much as an ant on the ground and walk along gently sweeping in front of them. It is a school of thought, isn't it? Not one I'd adhere to, but it is there and followed to a greater or lesser extent around the world. I guess animal activists tend to see animals as being at least as important as humans in a way you and I would not. Ditto vegetarians.Me, I've just had chicken soup for tea. So do I think humans are more important than chooks? Absolutely! But only if I can think at the same time that we are all brothers. I think you need both even as you are spooning your brother, in this case, into your mouth.
Me, I've just had chicken soup for tea. So do I think humans are more important than chooks? Absolutely! But only if I can think at the same time that we are all brothers.Surely this is having your chicken and eating it?
Look at this story.
The essence of it is that Ben Stein was supposed to be present at the University of Vermont to receive an honorary degree.
I'm all in favour of free speech, and I'm not suggesting that Creationists should be gagged. By all means let them talk as much as they want on the Internet. But I also agree with Dawkins that it's quite inappropriate for proponents of crank science, which is what this is, to be given honorary degrees.
And I'm not surprised that Dawkins didn't like the imputation that evolution, which is just a factual scientific theory, was somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Let me see, was the theory of gravity responsible for the Nazi bombing raids on London? After all, if there were no gravity, then the bombs wouldn't have been able to fall.
Of course, if there were serious doubt about the reality of evolution, then there might be something in his argument. But there's barely more doubt about evolution than there is about gravity. Now that we're able to sequence the DNA from many species and compare the similarities and differences, it's surely been demonstrated conclusively. What kind of wiggle room is left?
Hazel wrote: "That's the reason I've avoided Dawkins. Does he know that he's a fundamentalist?"Um... I doubt he would use that exact word. But with suitable rephrasing, he might agree with you...
I take issue with "science" having attacked religion. Individual scientists may have but that is a different thing altogether.I'd also like to point out that "fundamental" or high energy-density physics is only one branch of physics and not necessarily representative of physicists generally. Most branches of physics currently being researched do not have such a dearth of results, which is an enormous part of the problem regarding string theory and their rivals.
Manny wrote: "Me, I've just had chicken soup for tea. So do I think humans are more important than chooks? Absolutely! But only if I can think at the same time that we are all brothers.Surely this is having yo..."
I think the point about Stein is that he's done a bunch of perfectly normal things one might get an honorary degree for. He wasn't, as far as I understand it, getting it for being anti-Evolution. If that is so, then does somebody have to come up to scratch in all areas before we award him on the basis of something worthy of it?
Manny, as for Dawkins not liking the Holocaust suggestion, of which I've only seen reference, is this any different to everything that I gather Dawkins attributes to Religion in a bad way?I think all of them are mostly disgracefully behaved!
Robert wrote: "I take issue with "science" having attacked religion. Individual scientists may have but that is a different thing altogether...."Well, I did suggest that was speculative. It is what I'm feeling from my reading, but I haven't done nearly enough of that yet to feel sure of anything. It is very confusing trying to follow a slinging mud match and extracting the odd bit of useful information from it.
I think the point about Stein is that he's done a bunch of perfectly normal things one might get an honorary degree for. He wasn't, as far as I understand it, getting it for being anti-Evolution.Well, I don't know the details of the story. He does seem to have maintained a high profile as being a supporter of ID, so I can see why Dawkins might have jumped to conclusions. Especially if Stein quoted him out of context in a program which tried to link evolutionary theory to Nazi ideology.
This problem is easily solved by not handing out honorary Degrees...
Robert wrote: "This problem is easily solved by not handing out honorary Degrees..."Oh come on, there are some good ones. Did you see Private Eye's Latin speech in connection with Kathy Lette's honorary degree last month?
Here's the thing; people get honorary Degrees because they are regarded as good at something - since they are respected in their field already they don't need the qualification so the honorary Degree serves no function. They are either controvercial or ignored.Um, no - I don't read Private Eye, don't know Latin and don't recognise the name Kathy Lette! Talk about striking out...
Kathy Lette writes erotic comic novels for women, though I haven't read any of them. If someone has done so, maybe they can comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of granting her an honorary degree. I would certainly be delighted to see an honorary degree awarded to the person who wrote the good novels in Brigade Mondaine, my favourite erotic trash series...
Manny, just wanted to stick up a bit for The Selfish Gene. I found it just as fascinating as The Ancestors Tale, and didn't think he spent very much time at all attacking religion. Though, I read it before the popularity of atheism began to rise, and so maybe I wasn't paying attention to those parts in that context. But as someone who was only vaguely familiar with evolution, The Selfish Gene was a, to borrow a phrase from Dawkins, consciousness raising book. notgettingenough, you keep speaking about philosophers in opposition to scientists, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Philosophy not built up on the shoulders of science is empty philosophy. Read some of the old philosophers, and as brilliant as they were for their time, most of their ideas are laughably silly now. They just didn't have the scientific knowledge to ground their theories in reality.
You talk about living in harmony with all animals, and the the point that we're all living creatures, but without philosophy based on science those statements are meaningless. The fact that science tells us that animals with highly complex nervous systems can feel pain has led me to be a vegetarian, and the same scientific knowledge allows me to eat vegetables and not feel bad. To not become overly emotional if I step on a bug or destroy a plant (I don't do these things on purpose mind you), because I have something to stand on when I say these forms of life probably do not have any sort of conscious experience.
I really don't want to turn this into a religious argument, but it's worth pointing that religions over time have condoned all sorts of atrocious behavior because of "philosophies" that like you mention above, view the black man as unequal. Now, we don't NEED science to tell us that all humans deserve the same freedoms, but science can surely come in and say, "yes, the genetic differences between humans of different races is insignificant, and there is no justification for cruelty to another race or the idea that they are less human".
In fact, I loved The Selfish Gene too! I keep meaning to post a review, but haven't got around to doing so yet.And about racism: one of the most fascinating segments in The Ancestor's Tale is about that exact topic. Did you know that other species, e.g. certain kinds of grasshoppers, can also be racists? There are two subgroupings in the species that look a bit different. They can mate with each other and produce viable offspring, but for some reason they don't want to. Dawkins spends some time discussing why this might be. In a strange way, it's comforting to know that we aren't the only assholes on the planet...
Greg wrote: "Manny, just wanted to stick up a bit for The Selfish Gene. I found it just as fascinating as The Ancestors Tale, and didn't think he spent very much time at all attacking religion. Though, I read i..."But Greg, Do you think we need science to tell us, for example, that an animal feels pain? I don't know the history of science so I make no claims, but I'm surprised it isn't intuitively obvious! Do we need science to tell us to live in harmony with the world? I don't understand that, sorry. It is intuitively obvious and/or experientially (is that a word? It's late and I'm sleepy) obvious. I bet farmers first practised rotation not because science explained it but because they knew it was right...medicine used leeches because they knew they worked.
I dare say there is lots in the world that is good as a result of science rejecting what it does not understand, but leeches is a classic example of the opposite. Good practice rejected for a long time because science didn't have an explanation.
I'm not trying to attack science, but I have this idea at the moment that science - some scientists? - are involved in a tirade against religion that doesn't make sense. To pick on the worst aspect of religion is no more acceptable than to pick on the worst aspects of science. Religion and science do not need to be enemies.
Like I say, this is only my sense of what I'm reading and observing. Fist impressions.
While not suggesting for one moment it is even remotely close to how I live, the idea that we can treat life that is conscious differently from how we treat conscious life - what, with less care and concern, is that a fair way to put it? - has to be dubious, doesn't it? Would seas, rivers, soil the world over be in such ecological trouble if we didn't see this difference, which you say is attributable to science?
Having been reading a bit about scientific methodology lately, just enough not to understand it, has me wondering....
Good night!
I love Dawkins, though I think when he puts down religion he's completely missing the point, as far as I can see. He looks at religion as an inferior form of science, and the idea that it could be something entirely different from science doesn't seem to occur to him at all. Anyway, as a scientist he's top notch. As a religion-basher he never says anything that even approaches bashing my own religion, and the things he does say, about religion being improperly applied by some people who refuse to believe in natural selection, and the fact that all life on Earth is descended from the same initial forms, I entirely agree with, and incidentally, so does my religion.Everything true is part of my religion. That teaches me that there's no conflict whatsoever between my religion and science.
I think Dawkins does sometimes tend to attribute some poor choices that are general features of human nature specifically to religion without good cause. People are religious, they're also human and imperfect. Post hoc does not mean propter hoc. If you eliminate religion entirely, as for instance the Soviets famously almost managed to do, you're still left with a lot of ugly behavior, jingoism, nationalism, racism, the whole thing... so it wasn't really religion's fault after all, was it? In fact, it's just possible that religion helps on the whole rather than hurting, though I can't swear to that in general.
It's certainly true that my religion has made me a better person. It's also true that religious people in general do more humanitarian work, donate more time, effort, money, and sweat equity to good causes than people on average. I know I personally am much more involved in worldsaving efforts and concerned with averting human extinction now than back when I was an atheist. My guess is that's generally true, though obviously not in every case. So when you add us all up, taking into account the extremists, the anti-intellectuals, the tower topplers and suicide bombers along with the people who work at soup kitchens, build houses, care for the sick, and all that, I think it comes out at least somewhat positive, though that is arguably an article of faith.
Tatiana wrote: "I love Dawkins, though I think when he puts down religion he's completely missing the point, as far as I can see. He looks at religion as an inferior form of science, and the idea that it could be..."What a great comment, Tatiana. I no longer have to think about how to put things that you have put far better than I might have.
"But Greg, Do you think we need science to tell us, for example, that an animal feels pain? I don't know the history of science so I make no claims, but I'm surprised it isn't intuitively obvious!"I'm glad it's obvious to you, but it's not quite so obvious to the world at large. If it was, would humans really treat animals so terribly on such a large scale? (i guess humans treat other humans pretty horribly too.) Look at our factory farming system. Animals are routinely tortured and live in abysmal conditions. The workers don't care, the owners don't care, the investors don't care, the government doesn't care, and all of us who give our dollars to this system don't care, so who cares? Religious institutions aren't out there lobbying to treat all gods children humanely. The only religion that I know of that has prescriptions for how to treat animals for slaughter is Judaism, but even the kosher laws haven't been able to keep up with the changing times. This is a problem, in that religions are slow to change(minority rights, women's rights, gay rights) do to an inherent push back by the orthodoxy.
"Do we need science to tell us to live in harmony with the world? "
We need somebody! I don't think this is intuitively obvious, yet again, evidenced by how we treat each other, other life, and our planet. The statement doesn't exist in a vacuum, it needs to based on something. Though I agree with you, stating it doesn't make it so, and there are plenty of people who would disagree with that statement.
" I bet farmers first practised rotation not because science explained it but because they knew it was right...medicine used leeches because they knew they worked."
Sure, humans have engaged in all sorts of activities for thousands of years that we didn't fully understand. It shouldn't be surprising that we have been able to stumble upon things that worked without using the scientific method. But the problem is that very often, we don't understand WHY something works the way it does, so we surround it with all sorts of superstition. By studying it with the scientific method we can determine the mechanisms of how or why it works, and improve upon it, get rid of the stuff that may be useless or actively harmful. This is what the enterprise of science has brought us. And remember, scientists used to be called natural philosophers. It was an experimental way of philosophizing. It wasn't till the what, 17 or 1800s when the term scientist came about.
I am very happy to agree that science and religion need not be enemies.In the Soviet case one could view it as one institution attempting to eliminate another in order to have better control of the populace. Much of what people object to about religion seems to me to be an objection to institutions (Churches) dictating terms to individuals. The same objections could be made about many types of human institution so in the end they seem to be objections about human nature...
Tatiana, I quite agree with your comments. I don't really think The Ancestor's Tale has anything negative to say about religion in the broad sense, only Intelligent Design. To me, it's much more about how science can in fact help religious people to understand fundamental truths about the unity of all life at an intellectual as well as a spiritual level. It's a very good book.
Robert wrote: "I'd also like to point out that "fundamental" or high energy-density physics is only one branch of physics and not necessarily representative of physicists generally."I can't decide if this comment was intentionally hilarious or not. But I laughed out loud anyway.
Interesting thread.
Very good review, Manny. I don't often comment on your reviews, because what can one say? This time, though, I heard you very clearly.
Well done, Manny. I have found that Dawkins often tends to rub me the wrong way for subtle reasons -- but this book was so different in the ways you so eloquently stated. Pulling life together into a single story resonates with me.
Hey Greg,I'm not one to ever defend religion, but per your mention of Judaism as the only religion you know of that has rules about eating animals...you might be interested in looking at Jainism, an offshoot of Hinduism. Jainist tenets are for peace and non-violence towards all living beings, and they practice a strict form of vegetarianism.
According to Wikipedia (our Bible of modern Truth):
There are five basic ethical principles (vows) prescribed.
* Non-violence (Ahimsa) - to cause no harm to living beings.
* Truth (Satya) - to always speak the truth in a harmless manner.
* Non-stealing (Asteya) - to not take anything that is not willingly given.
* Celibacy (Brahmacarya) - to not indulge in sensual pleasures.
* Non-possession (Aparigraha) - to detach from people, places, and material things.
As a fairly lightweight Buddhist (i.e. one who reads about it and occasionally meditates), i think Buddhism has a strong vegetarian strain as well although it's not something proscribed since Buddhism is generally not didactic like Western religions are.
Has anyone else read Thomas Disch's wonderful short story Ingmar Bergman Meets God? Bergman is surprised by God's message which, if I recall correctly, is something like "exercise regularly and get plenty of vitamin C"."Is that it, Lord?" he asks.
"I've always been very big on dietary advice," explains the Ruler of the Universe.
Now that I think about it, is there anyone who could reasonably claim to be both a great scientist and a great philosopher? I guess Leibniz might get his name put forward. Though personally I think he was at least as crap a philosopher as Dawkins. Monads... puh-lease.
David, you're absolutely right. Let me amend my statement above to "out of religions who don't have prescriptions against eating meat, Judaism is the only one I know that has rules for how animals can be killed and eaten."
Isaiah, I'd forgotten that Descartes also made substantial contributions to optics! Good point. What an incredible guy.Greg and David: What about Islam? Rules for halal butchery?
Manny, I don't know anything about it, but if so, I stand corrected!
i think it's interesting how it was Descartes (unless my memory of college Philosophy 101 is faulty), who claimed that animals felt no pain, and even a horse could be thrown in a fire without any compunction. i believe it had something to do with the way he defined a soul, and since the Christian god only gave souls to humans, animals weren't permitted to feel pain. i don't remember the details of how he justified this, but he said the simulation of pain behavior by animals was just an illusion.
Yes, definitely Descartes... was just thinking about that myself! But with reference to Not's arguments, I'm not sure which column to put him in... should we blame science, because he was a scientist and came to this appalling conclusion, or praise it for later determining that it was all nonsense?
Is Descartes considered a scientist?Also, Descartes thought the soul interfaced with the human body through the Pineal gland. I don't know much about animal physiology, but if they don't have pineal glands I can see why he would've argued that they don't have souls and thus don't feel pain.
I would say that Descartes's lasting contribution to human thought is algebraic geometry, with Cartesian Doubt coming an honourable second. But he made some good discoveries in optics too - look him up!Surely a lot of animals must have a pineal gland? We tend to share most of our genetic software with our closer cousins...
he came to that conclusion, i recall, as part of his philosophical analysis not through his scientific research. So i guess the point would be that just because you're a philosopher, doesn't mean you are any more sensitive about compassion than a scientist is.It was Einstein who said, "Our task must be to free ourselves ... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty." and "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
I agree. Philosophers are just people - some of them compassionate, some less so. Though if there's a careful study that demonstrates a correlation between philosophical understanding and compassion, I'll be happy to retract that statement! Looks like there would be some tricky methodological questions, though...
All scientists are philosophers - Natural Philosophers.So - when I'm joking nobody gets it and when I'm serious, Isiaih laughs...
Robert, try replacing "physics" with "Islam" or something comparable in the sentence I quoted, and you'll see why I thought it was so funny.
