Michael Rea, a philosopher at Notre Dame, has posted a reply to Daniel Dennett’s ‘brights’ Op-Ed, complete with a reply from Dennett and a counter-reply from Rea.
Rea argues that Dennett shouldn’t be demanding respect from theists when he shows so little respect towards them. (Rea also equates ‘bright’ with ‘atheist’, which I think is fair. I was writing a long post arguing that this was true, but it all ended up seeming redundant.) But I think Dennett gets the better of the exchange, as long as you’re prepared to allow him a fairly fine distinction.
Dennett argues that he shouldn’t have to respect all religions in order to demand respect for atheism - he doesn’t have to respect religions that encourage mass murder, or genital mutilation, or (and this is the kicker) the teaching of blatant falsehoods. Rea interprets this as disrespect for all creationists. But creationists can fall on the acceptable side of Dennett’s catalogue of religions, as long as they don’t try and poison the minds of the kiddies. This might seem like a fairly arbitrary boundary to toleration, but I think it’s the right one.
It should be noted that Dennett’s ‘tolerance’ for creationists isn’t exactly a mile deep. But he’s not demanding that theists spend as much time studying the canon of humanist ethicists as they spend studying the Bible, so it’s not like his demands are extreme either - contrary I think to what Rea suggests. As long as the creationists don’t try and poison young minds, and don’t resort to guns when we respond to their arguments directed to adults, they get to be part of the community that we all tolerate.
And now that I’ve defended Dennett once in my lifetime, we will now resume regularly scheduled programming. I’d start with humourous evolutionary explanations for why “frequent masturbation may protect men against prostate cancer”, but it’s too hard to come up with anything original.
Rhea has one weak ass defense to the misrepresentation charge. Basically he argues that if the religious practice is widely accepted then it’s ok and, by extension, arguing against it is not ok. Does that go for female genital mutilation, Rhea? It’s widely accepted in Africa. Slavery was once widely accepted in this part of the woods. Better go think up some better arguments if you want to argue with a bright.
Not too long ago, Michael Walzer spoke at a local university. He spent most of his time talking about similar issues. The genital mutilation example came up, along with some others, like whether deaf parents should be able to refuse cochlear implants for their deaf children or whether society should have any input regarding the curriculum of parochial schools. I enjoyed Walzer’s book, On Toleration. Dennett is using Walzer’s ideas against Rea. I wonder if Rea disagrees with Walzer’s argument, or just Dennett?
Never mind the evolutionary explanations for why “frequent masturbation may protect men against prostate cancer”, what’s the creation scientist’s explanation?
I think it’s important to distinguish between respect and toleration: there are practices that we ought to tolerate but not respect. We tolerate a practice (roughly) when we deliberately refrain from the sort of interference that would make it hard for people to participate in the practice. Respect, I think, has more to do with the attitudes that we take than with how we act. We should also make two further distinctions: (i) between respecting people and respecting their actions or beliefs, and (ii) between having a disrespectful attitude towards something and publicly expressing that disrespectful attitude.
I’m inclined to think that we atheists ought to tolerate all but the most extreme religious practices, and we ought to respect religious people. But there’s no very good reason why we should have a respectful attitude towards all their beliefs and practices — although if we are to respect religious people, we have to be circumspect in expressing our disrespect for their beliefs and practices.
Dawkins has in my judgment clearly gone too far in expressing disrespectful attitudes towards those who disagree with him about religion. But I’m inclined to think that Rea has too. To be properly respectful of atheists, he should have tried harder to find a more charitable interpretation of Dennett’s words, and to avoid using such a fierce and bitter tone, especially in response to Dennett’s NY Times piece, which was quite free of denigrating remarks towards religious people.
I was also astonished by Rea’s claim that it is not uncommon for people to be “passed over for academic jobs or [have] trouble getting tenure because of their religious beliefs or religious involvement.” Many of the most distinguished philosophers around have made no secret of their religious beliefs, even in their philosophical work (Dummett, Putnam, Van Inwagen, Swinburne, Bob and Marilyn Adams, Plantinga, most scholars of medieval philosophy, and so on and on). What is the evidence for this accusation of discrimation? This is a very serious charge, and it shouldn’t be made lightly. Again, Rea seems to be rushing to judgment here. (Didn’t someone once say, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”?)
As an atheist with an only sibling (a sister) who’s an evangelical minister, this is not merely a theoretical issue for me.
First, I should mention that I couldn’t manage to read beyond the first few paragraphs of Dennett’s op-ed, even though I like Dennett quite a lot. But, as an atheist physicalist, this whole “bright” thing embarrasses me. ‘Nuff said.
My closest friend, also an atheist, has long been puzzled by the degree to which I am tolerant and respectful of most theism and theists even though I think most theism is at best mildly foolish and at worst horribly malignant.
I suppose the first part of the reason for my attitude is that I find a great deal to like and admire in the very best examples of theism and theists. I also find the stereotypical rabid atheist’s hostility to theism to often be uninformed, simple-minded, and even bigoted. I probably go out of my way to disassociate myself from that sort of thing.
And then there is simply the fact that most people in this world are theists and I pragmatically prefer not to be in a perpetual state of war—a war that I cannot expect to see my side win in my lifetime.
But the larger part of my tolerance is my general intellectual tendency to acknowledge the possibility that I’m mistaken either in my assumptions or reasoning (or both)1. I could be wrong, they could be right; and while many examples of theism and theists are either pitiable or deplorable, those are not properties inherent to theists or theism.
As long as a theist pursues his/her beliefs earnestly, thoughtfully, good-heartedly, with at least a minimum of respect for differing beliefs, without directly negatively interfering in my life, and as long as their actions are not egregiously offensive to the common good (as I imperfectly comprehend such a thing), I find little to complain about and am inclined to see the believer in a positive light.
I think it’s perfectly appropriate for them to say that I’m wrong, even (in the case of Christians) that they believe I’m going to Hell, just as I believe it’s appropriate for me to claim that they’re wrong. I think it’s appropriate for them, in the context of democracy, to assert their morality and worldview via the political process. I think it’s appropriate that I oppose them when I disagree with their goals.
As an extreme example, I am willing to accept a certain moral nobility in the actions of abortion clinic bombers, provided I believe they are honestly and chiefly motivated by a belief that they are attempting to disrupt organized murder. That doesn’t mean that I agree with them, nor that I think they shouldn’t be prosecuted under the law.
In short, I don’t feel the need to vilify everyone with whom I have a substantial disagreement. I am perfectly aware that reasonable and informed people can, in good-faith, come to very different conclusions and beliefs than I have. I reserve my contempt and anger for those who act contrary to what I consider the common good as a result of beliefs that are not reasonable, not informed, and (most importantly) are not arrived at in good-faith. That’s my dividing line between the good guys and the bad guys, and it’s a way of seeing the world and other people that seems odd or incomprehensible to most but is essential to my nature.
I get along well with my sister, even though her beliefs are quite different than mine, because in my opinion she’s on my side of that dividing line. Some people she’s known who share her beliefs are on the other side of that line, and this has caused a not inconsiderable amount of conflict for her. Even though our assumptions and conclusions about the world are in many ways very much at odds, she and I often find that our essential values are not.
[1] I should be clear that this does not prevent me in the least from having the courage of my convictions. Or, for that matter, from having convictions.
I think what Dennett is asking for is equal standing for the beliefs of Atheists, for example a slot on BBC Radio’s thought for the day and I guess protection against being offended, perhaps by schoolteachers or being forced to accept propositions they find inimical as in the fuss over the biologist refusing to write a letterof reccommendation for a creationist. Apart from real politik and good manners I don’t see that that would force him to be nice about creationists and the like. The field of battle for equal respect from the law and forces of political correctness is not the same as the one for the validity of creationism.
Jack: yes, but in doing so he seems to be (as I understand it) inadvertently strengthening the case the theists make that atheism (or, as they put it, “secular humanism”) is a belief system taxonomically equivalent to their own. In the US, where there is supposedly a seperation of church and state, that assertion has important political implications, which is the reason they favor it.
But atheism is not the same sort of thing as theism, they are not symmetrical. I sympathize with the desire for atheism to be a socially acceptable position in the US—and it’s not (something that tends to amaze most Europeans)—and for atheists to feel they have a “place at the table”. Believe me, I deeply sympathize with that desire. But sitting down to dinner with the theists means that we’re not opting-out of the context of dinner…which is the whole freakin’ point, in my opinion.
Gummo: the theistic explanation for masturbation is obvious — God loves us very, very much…
So has anybody done the follow-up study about whether prostate cancer rates are significantly different in places with and without guilt-inducing attitudes toward masturbation? And if they are, does that give us a license not to tolerate and/or respect religions with cancer-inducing anti-masturbation clauses?
Dennett writes:
Is teaching creationism to a young child as evil as teaching them that, say, Jews–or Palestinians—are subhuman? No, but it is still the teaching of a blatant falsehood to an unsuspecting young mind. When these children grow up, in this Age of the Gene, they will want to know why you lied to them, why you hid the glories of evolutionary biology from them.”
The main problem with Dawkins is that he doesn’t really understand science. Scientists may claim that they are on the “quest for truth”, but in reality they are on a quest for facts. Facts about the world.
Scientists work from induction. Experiment leads to conclusion. David Hume teaches that induction is an inherently faulty method of reasoning. But because physical laws don’t change much, day to day, it’s good enough for government work.
Religion uses deductive reasoning instead of inductive reasoning. Deduction is a more valid form of reasoning, but only works if your major premise is correct.
There is nothing inherently contradictory about the scientific model (“Here is how things work.”) and the religion model (“This is why things are as they are.”)
An atheist who has a scientific bent may say “I don’t believe in God/ creationism because you cannot prove it.” That is a valid viewpoint.
An atheist who says, “People who believe in God/creationism are lying because they are saying things that cannot be proven using science” is misunderstanding both science and religion.
Science uses the scientific method to uncover scientific facts. That is wonderful. No good scientist would ever claim that there is no other method that could ever uncover a truth. Many people think that religion is a valid non-scientific truth.
Every science class should teach the scientific method. Creationism would be a great example of demonstrating how something could be true, but is clearly not science. (The theories of Sigmund Freud would be another good example.)
So, where does Dennett get off calling creationism a “blatant falsehood”? What scientific experiment has he performed that shows the world was not created in a miracle? That the laws of physics were the same 6000 years ago?
So teach kids whatever you want, just be clear that what you’re teaching them isn’t “science.” But also teach them that not being science need not mean that it is not also true.
Better go think up some better arguments if you want to argue with a bright.
And that typifies my annoyance with the Brights, as described by Dennett’s article:
the smug sense of intellectual superiority is nearly as irritating as the religious fundamentalists’ sense of moral superiority.
Dennett’s squeamishness about Santeria is misplaced unless he’s a vegan, or at least an ethical omnivore; an animal suffers no more in such rituals than it does in modern agricultural operations.
As for the offense of misinforming a child, while I oppose teaching Creationism in schools (if for no other reason than that we’ll never get them to teach Hindu creationism, obviously the correct version), I think misinforming children or adults about the origin of the species is a much lesser offense than misinforming them about issues that actually are relevant for modern citizens.
A friend once said that he had stopped worrying about religion because he realized that his decisions didn’t rely on whether there was a God or not. I can’t think of a decision that would rely on whether God created the world lickety-split in 7 days, or directed its changes over millenia, or doesn’t exist at all.
On the other hand, misinforming people about what happens in a “partial birth” abortion, or whether Saddam Hussein has been proven to bear responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is a terrible offense because people make decisions based on this information.
Anyway, what it all comes down to is that brights are convinced that there is an objective reality that proves them to be in the right and all believers to be in the wrong.
And this is why I can’t be a bright; I’m not that sure. I refuse to pretend that I believe in any supernaturality, but I can’t tell someone who feels spirituality that he’s wrong, any more than I could tell someone who feels like he’s “in love” that he isn’t. I can’t dictate what goes on in other people’s souls, nor determine whether it is True.
Hmm… from reading first this:
“Scientists work from induction.”
followed by this:
“Religion uses deductive reasoning instead of inductive reasoning. Deduction is a more valid form of reasoning, but only works if your major premise is correct.”
followed by this:
“So teach kids whatever you want, just be clear that what you’re teaching them isn’t “science.” But also teach them that not being science need not mean that it is not also true.”
I see no way to avoid deducing that in your opinion science is subservient to religion. So your comment goes onto the 10 year old’s reading pile as an example of how creationists surreptitiously attempt to corrupt young minds.
Why can’t you guys just be upfront and open about the project? You’d get more respect that way.
BTW, who decides “if your major premise is correct”? Torquemada?
THEISTS IN PHILOSOPHY
Rea complains about the disrespect theists receive in the field of philosophy:
Classics
The Virtual Tophet
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (theology)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Amity Wilczek (biology)
Theodore Wong
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Irascible Professor
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review