Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[John Hewitt]

I would be interested in what readers think of this, which comes from eskeptic, via IIDB.

Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

In his Skeptic article entitled “Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion” (initially published online in eSkeptic, July 4th 2007), David Sloan Wilson writes:

When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise.
​

Why would Wilson ‘naturally assume’ any such thing? Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks? The God Delusion does, as it happens, have a chapter on the evolutionary origins of religion. But to say that this chapter is peripheral to my main critique would be an understatement. When I was asked to prepare an abridgment for the British audio recording, I had to decide which bits of the book were essential, and which bits could, however regretfully, be left out. My first cut, and the only chapter I deleted completely, was the chapter on evolutionary origins. Sad as I was to lose it (I was consoled by the fact that we also recorded an unabridged version for the American market) it seemed to me the least essential chapter to the central theme of the book.
The central theme of the book is the question of whether God exists. I agree that it is also interesting to ask whether religion has some kind of Darwinian survival value. But whatever the answer to that might turn out to be, it will make no difference to the central question of whether God exists. Religious belief might have a positive survival value and God might or might not exist. Religious belief might have a negative survival value and God might or might not exist. Moreover, other important aspects of my critique, dealt with in other chapters of The God Delusion, are also unaffected by religion’s possible evolutionary advantages.
As for group selection (either as normally understood or in the idiosyncratic sense of Wilson’s private re-definition, about which he has been obsessing for thirty years), The God Delusion devotes a sympathetic page and half to the possibility that something like it might apply to the special case of religion. But a page and a half was all I could spare because I had more interesting matters to talk about, for example the “moth in the candle flame” theory of the origins of religion. I referred my readers to Wilson for a fuller treatment of what he calls group selection, and moved on. I thought it a generous gesture at the time, and I see no reason now to regret my choice to write my own book rather than his.

 

[Mojo]

What do you think?

 

[Beausoleil]

I'd be mildy interested to read what Dawkins had to say about an evolutionary origin of religion - it's an area where he might have something original to say. I'm not at all interested in his scientific discussion of whether God exists - I've sat through his tv programmes and read his opinion pieces and they strike me as rehashing of arguments that were trite a long time ago (I'm not a theist, if it makes a difference).

So I guess I'd like to thank Wilson for the heads up, and Dawkins for confirming that Wilson's view of what the book is about is correct.

 

[Dragon]

Wilson writes (in that link from eSceptic) -

In The God Delusion Dawkins makes it clear that he loathes religion for its intolerance, blind faith, cruelty, extremism, abuse, and prejudice. He attributes these problems to religion and thinks that the world would be a better place without it. Given recent events in the Middle East and even here in America, it is understandable why he might draw such a conclusion, but the question is: What’s evolution got to do with it?

That's Wilson's question, of course, not Dawkins' (well except for the one chapter).
WIlson continues

Dawkins and I agree that evolutionary theory provides a powerful framework for studying religion, and we even agree on some of the details, so it is important to pinpoint exactly where we part company.

Dawkins, quite rightly, points out that this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of religion or the existence of gods - which is actually the main theme of the book.
I must say that Wilson's review does contain rather a lot about his own interests and hypoptheses - Dawkins is quite gentle with him IMO.

btw, John, there's a forum rule about providing excerpts and links rather than pasting the whole article.

 

[Brown]

Richard Dawkins said:

My first cut, and the only chapter I deleted completely, was the chapter on evolutionary origins.

This was a good choice to cut. This chapter was easily the weakest and least enlightening chapters of the entire book, in my judgment. I kept thinking that Dawkins was missing the point: wouldn't a more fruitful analysis begin with evolutionary origins of self-deception capacity and inclination to delusion generally? Furthermore, the ideas Dawkins put forth seemed to be speculative (i.e., Dawkins himself seemed to acknowledge a lack of scientific evidence) and non-exclusive (i.e., other fairly obvious influences may have been at work, but they were discussed briefly or not at all).

 

[JoeEllison]

I can see why Dawkins has little interest in the discussion in his book. Considering the overall hemes and thrust of the book, it is fair to say that spending much time quibbling over the possible evolutionary sources of religion is less important than its outcomes, which we can mostly agree with.

 

[fishbob]

Why would Wilson ‘naturally assume’ any such thing? Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks?

my bold

This bit from Dawkins pretty much nails it.

 

[articulett]

my bold

This bit from Dawkins pretty much nails it.

I agree. I can never make sense of Dawkins' critics. It always sounds like the courtiers reply to me.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

I think everyone sees Dawkins' critique as being more shrill or pointed than it is because we are raised to give deference to religion, faith, and the invisible gods people believe in.

If he'd have written a similar book about the astrology delusion, I don't think the critiques would have been nearly as reactionary.

 

[qayak]

I agree. I can never make sense of Dawkins' critics. It always sounds like the courtiers reply to me.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

I think everyone sees Dawkins' critique as being more shrill or pointed than it is because we are raised to give deference to religion, faith, and the invisible gods people believe in.

If he'd have written a similar book about the astrology delusion, I don't think the critiques would have been nearly as reactionary.

Well put. I think one can pretty much see at which point in the road to discarding religion Dawkins' critics are at just by their response to his book.

The self proclaimed atheists who express their dislike for him and his writings seem to base their dislike in a hope against hope that there really is something to be salvaged from the ashes of religion. They seem to be angry at the fact that Dawkins has sifted through the ashes and reported that there is, in fact, nothing there.

I also think there is an element of nationalism at play here. Many people seem to resent an "uppity Brit" bluntly pointing out their silliness.

 

[Mobyseven]

I read Sloan's article and quite frankly, it bored me. The entire critique seems to be based either upon an ignorance of what Dawkins is arguing about, or a willfully constructed strawman - that is that the question is not, "Is religion beneficial?" (Though that is part of the book) the question is, "Does god exist?"

 

[Beausoleil]

Well put. I think one can pretty much see at which point in the road to discarding religion Dawkins' critics are at just by their response to his book.

The self proclaimed atheists who express their dislike for him and his writings seem to base their dislike in a hope against hope that there really is something to be salvaged from the ashes of religion. They seem to be angry at the fact that Dawkins has sifted through the ashes and reported that there is, in fact, nothing there.

I also think there is an element of nationalism at play here. Many people seem to resent an "uppity Brit" bluntly pointing out their silliness.

I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books. I think one can see how far people have come in discarding the religious mindset in their no longer needing to treat Dawkins as a prophet and in their no longer needing to rehash the arguments by reading such books. It's ok, there is no God, let it go.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.

 

[Big Al]

Is it beneficial for kids to believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? Possibly: I don't know.

Does that have any bearing on whether they exist or not? Absolutely not.

Does it cause irreparable damage to the kids' psyches to reveal that the TF and SC don't exist as they grow up? Not as far as I can tell.

Isn't it time for us to grow up?

 

[clerihew80]

"At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."

Funnily enough, I see nothing to disagree with in this statement. Dawkins is indeed an angry atheist. And yes, he is taking advantage of his well-earned reputation as a scientist to express his personal opinions on religion to a large audience.

So what's the problem, Bobby? Care to give an example of his alleged "shallowness"? I don't think anyone here is treating Dawkins as a "prophet."

You admit that you've never read any of his books. So why the snide dismissal of a man whose work you're only marginally familiar with? Is it just contrariness for the sake of contrariness? Are you trying to demonstrate your superiority to us run-of-the-mill atheists and skeptics?

 

[Beady]

The self proclaimed atheists who express their dislike for him and his writings seem to base their dislike in a hope against hope that there really is something to be salvaged from the ashes of religion. They seem to be angry at the fact that Dawkins has sifted through the ashes and reported that there is, in fact, nothing there.

In defiance of your gross stereotyping, I hope to salvage nothing from religion. OTOH, I recognize that 87% of the population (extrapolating from 2000 US census figures) belong to some form of organized religion, that I have to live in close proximity to them; that I have many transactions with them in my daily life; that many/most of them are good and decent people who choose for whatever reason to attribute their goodness and decency to their religion; and that because of their goodness and decency, regardless of where it comes from, they deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

I also disagree with Dawkins' approach, believing that it's easier to talk to a friend about the subject than it is to talk to him after first making him an enemy. The title of Dawkins' book goes a long way toward setting up a confrontation as opposed to a discussion and, consequently, will convert virtually no one.

As for the evolutionary aspects of religion, I find that more interesting than anything else. There are plenty of works about "How" religion developed (see, for example, Karen Armstrong's books), but comparatively little about "Why." The one thing I've gotten out of Dawkins' book so far (I've been struggling through it for months - Sagan's book is a much easier read) is the single light-bulb moment engendered by the moth and the flame referred to in the OP.

Which brings us back to the people we live among. If the "Need To Believe" really is somehow hardwired into the typical human, as Dawkins at least appears to consider, whether directly or as a byproduct of some evolutionary process, then Believers do not deserve insults and derision. It simply isn't their fault. In fact, if such hardwiring really exists, then it is we Nonbelievers who are the aberration; there is something abnormal about our thinking that we had nothing to do with, and we deserve no credit for breaking away.

 

[andyandy]

The self proclaimed atheists.....

but not the True atheists (TM) like yourself?

 

[articulett]

I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books. I think one can see how far people have come in discarding the religious mindset in their no longer needing to treat Dawkins as a prophet and in their no longer needing to rehash the arguments by reading such books. It's ok, there is no God, let it go.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.

Well it appears a lot of people are eager to hear his opinion as it's a top selling book in both countries. Perhaps David Sloan Wilson et. al. are jealous that their opinions are not as sought after. Sometimes people need to see smart people with conviction addressing their concerns...and I suspect Dawkins speaks for a LOT of people who have been afraid to speak out--the same for Harris and Hitchens. It isn't harmless, and it can't be true. And when you show deference it just gets more audacious. It's a mind virus...and the only way to eradicate it is to speak up. Faith never has been a good way to know anything. And deference should be shown to those who are worthy not invisible overlords and people claiming to speak for him or believe in him.

Atheists don't have prophets...but we do have heroes. And science has heroes too. We respect those who bring civilization forward and Dawkins does so on many fronts. He has added huge amounts of knowledge and conveyed evolution to many. And he shows you can be a very fine, smart, moral human being without currying favor with an invisible entity.

 

[JoeEllison]

I agree. I can never make sense of Dawkins' critics. It always sounds like the courtiers reply to me.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

I think everyone sees Dawkins' critique as being more shrill or pointed than it is because we are raised to give deference to religion, faith, and the invisible gods people believe in.

If he'd have written a similar book about the astrology delusion, I don't think the critiques would have been nearly as reactionary.

Yeah, that's what I see too. Mostly, though, the argument seems to run that Dawkins should have gone out of his way to find aspects of religion worthy of praise and/or respect. The critics don't seem to mind that he's "preaching atheism", but that he refuses to give religion its "due". It isn't really the anger that drives people nuts, it is the dismissive attitude.

 

[fishbob]

As for the evolutionary aspects of religion, I find that more interesting than anything else. There are plenty of works about "How" religion developed (see, for example, Karen Armstrong's books), but comparatively little about "Why."

Call me cynical, but I have always suspected that the 'why' is money and power.

 

[Beady]

Call me cynical, but I have always suspected that the 'why' is money and power.

You're cynical.

Yes, yes, that's what it's used for (as John Adams, Lenin and Napoleon, et al, have remarked), but I mean "Why is this tool so readily available? Why are people, both individually and in groups, so susceptible to it? Why are the willingness, compulsion and need to believe in something so dominant in virtually every human?"

ETA: Dawkins does a fair enough job of arguing against organized religion, but I don't think he adds very much to an understanding of faith.

 

[qayak]

but not the True atheists (TM) like yourself?

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.