Are you threatened by clarity?

This short extract from the Q&A after Richard Dawkins‘ presentation at the Adelaide Writers’ Week a few months ago. You can find the full video at (Meet The Author: Richard Dawkins).

This is nice though because it presents a lovely contrast between the confrontational language of the Aussie questioner and the mild reasoned response of Dawkins. So much for Dawkins being strident!

He gives a brief outline of the criticism he and others have received from  bloggers about being too confrontational, describing the alternative “framing” approach. Dawkins concludes that both approaches are necessary.

I think I agree with him on that one. But I am open to other viewpoints.

Thanks to PZ Myers (Clarity : Pharyngula.)


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


20 responses to “Are you threatened by clarity?

  1. Avant Gardener

    It is a truth universally acknowledged that reason and religion are mortal foes. Reason deals a death blow to religion; religion is clearly irrationality on stilts.

    If only religion didn’t exist, reason would rule the world and there would be no more wars, tyrannies or murderous hatreds. It follows therefore that religious people are either stupid or unbalanced and are inimical to progress, modernity and happiness.

    Well, this universal truth isn’t true at all. In fact, reason is underpinned by religion — at least the Biblical variety. Without Genesis there would have been no Western science, no equality and human rights and no liberal belief in progress.

    I see I’ve already caused you to throw your Spectator round the room. What about the Enlightenment, you cry. That’s what gave rise to Western science and the opening of the Western mind, precisely because it ushered in an age of reason that knocked religious obscurantism out of the park.

    Ah yes, the open Western mind. But if you look around you — with a mind that is truly open — you will see much evidence that the Western mind is currently snapping tightly shut. Indeed, the paradox is that some of our most noisy advocates of reason say a lot of things which are demonstrably absurd.

    Take those scientists who promote not science but scientism — the belief that science can deal with every aspect of existence. The scorn and vituperation they heap upon religious believers is fathomless. And yet their materialism leads them to say things which are just… well, nutty.

    For example, Professor Richard Dawkins told me he was ‘not necessarily averse’ to the idea that life on earth had been created by a governing intelligence — provided that such an intelligence had arrived from another planet. How can it be that our pre-eminent apostle of reason appears to find little green men more plausible as an explanation for the origin of life than God?

    The answer is that in certain areas science has overreached itself by trying to play God, and as a result has turned into an ideology.

    Contrary to popular myth, Western science was not created by Enlightenment secularism. It grew out of the revolutionary claim in the Bible that the universe was the product of a rational Creator, who endowed man with reason so that he could ask questions about the natural world.

    With the rise of secularism, the striking thing is that people didn’t lose the drive to believe. They stopped having religious faith — but that drive was diverted instead into the creation of a wide variety of secular religions, otherwise known as ideologies. But these are the true enemies of truth and reason.

    Just look at environmentalism. This defines the modern ‘progressive’ — and yet it is fundamentally irrational, illiberal and pre-modern.

    Based on a spiritual belief in the innate, organic harmony of the universe, it grew out of pagan and animistic ideas which not only defied reason but, in elevating emotion and subjectivity as well as downgrading mankind, were to feed directly into such regressive thinking as eugenics and fascism.

    Indeed, all the ideologies so prevalent today in ‘progressive’ circles — scientism, environmentalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, moral and cultural relativism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism — are deeply reactionary, illiberal and coercive.

    This is because ideology, by wrenching evidence to fit a prior idea, is inimical to reason and sacrifices truth to power. That’s why environmentalism’s most famous offspring, man-made global warming theory, is totalitarian gobbledegook. There is no evidence to support it, plenty of evidence against it and even more evidence that much of the ‘science’ on which it is based is fraudulent.

    But like other ideologies, it appears immune to challenge, however compelling the case against it. And that’s because these are not propositions to be debated in a rational way, but rather self-evident truths which have the infallibility of religious dogma — and which are equipped with secular inquisitions against heretics.

    They represent not a point of view but virtue itself. All opposition must therefore be stamped out. So reason is replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.

    Thus scientists sceptical of man-made global warming are subjected to funding famine, character assassination or professional ostracism. Or Christians asserting the need for a child to be brought up by a mother and father find themselves forced off adoption panels and vilified as ‘homophobic’ bigots.

    In Manichean fashion, the left divides the world into rival camps of good and evil. Anyone who is not on the left is ‘the right’ and thus beyond the moral pale. But much that is demonised in this way as ‘right-wing’ is simply an attempt to uphold truth, reality and liberty against the distortions, fabrications and bullying of ideology.

    What’s really odd is this. Just like the persecution of medieval heretics, these secular inquisitions are driven at root by fear — the terror that a challenge to the Received Truth might actually succeed.

    Scientific triumphalists may realise that what they are saying about the origin of the universe is ludicrous. Yet they persist because of their fear of the alternative explanation — God.

    As the Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin has candidly explained, such scientists ‘take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs’ because they ‘cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’.

    So what is it about the possibility of even a Divine toenail over the threshold that terrifies these men of reason into becoming so irrational? Or to put it another way, if they are going to believe in ten impossible things before breakfast, then why not believe in the one impossible thing which happens to have an infrastructure of critical thought, thousands of years of history and their own civilisation attached to it?

    It can’t be that religion has committed terrible atrocities, because atheism has committed terrible atrocities too. Maybe it’s the fear that Biblical morality fetters the freedom to be footloose and fancy-free. After all, if genes are selfish why should they alone have all the fun?

    Maybe it’s a projection on to religion of all the bad stuff in human nature. For if the Biblical God is the cause of intolerance and war, tyranny and genocide, then humanity gets a free pass.

    But since Biblical religion actually underpinned reason and morality, the decline of religion means the erosion of truth and conscience. If religious totalitarianism was rule by the Church and political totalitarianism was rule by the ‘general will’, this is cultural totalitarianism, or rule by the subjective individual.

    In Britain, the effects are plain to see. Everything is upside down: the transgressive becomes the norm while the normal is discriminatory; victims become aggressors while aggressors are indulged; education leaves children in a state of noble savagery; broken families are promoted as lifestyle choice.

    And a brutal utilitarianism means elderly or coma victims are starved and dehydrated to death, with anyone who dares to mention the sanctity of human life dismissed as a Bible-bashing nut-job.

    Once the pre-eminent nation of reason and free debate, tolerance and civility, Britain is now the global leader of the rout of rationality and the retreat to a pre-modern war of all against all, facilitated by secular ‘human rights’. Britain — first into the Enlightenment, and now first out.

    Melanie Phillips


  2. Well, Avant, I guess you feel threatened by clarity. Your comment is so long I couldn’t download it all and what I did read was thoroughly confused.

    Some advice – no one bothers to read such a screed. If you have something to contribute what about condensing it to a reasonable length snd having another go.

    Sent from my iPod


  3. Richard Christie

    I tried to read the entire comment Mel, really I did.


  4. Melanie Phillips.
    So much stupid, so little time.


  5. Jon Galloway

    Hi Melanie,
    I agree with many of your sentiments, particularly those on moral relativism, the British experience, and environmentalism.

    I recommend “The Big Lie” by David Solway, which deals with many of these issues.

    What we are seeing, I believe, is a society that wants to commit suicide, much in the same way that the Roman Empire ended.


  6. Could someone explain to me WTF either Avant Gardener’s or Jon Galloway’s comments have to do with the subject of this post – comparing clarity and obtuseness.??

    Aren’t these two just irrelevant rolls?


  7. Jon Galloway

    To quote your post:

    This is nice though because it presents a lovely contrast between the confrontational language of the Aussie questioner and the mild reasoned response of Dawkins

    To quote your comments:


    Cedric Katesby
    Melanie Phillips.
    So much stupid, so little time.

    “Aren’t these two just irrelevant rolls?”

    So, I thank you kind sirs for your non-confrontational comments.

    Yours respectfully

    J Galloway


  8. Yes Jon the video does show a lovely contrast.

    But WTF relevance do your comments have?

    Please engage with the subject of the post.

    Otherwise I must assume you are talking wildly or are a troll (for what cause is not at all clear to me).


  9. Richard Christie

    I don’t think the Australian was using confrontational language, just colloquial language.
    He probably was brought up by “religious crackpots”. And bullshit is well, bullshit. Surely we’ve moved on a bit since jailing Shadbolt for saying the word in the ‘sixties.
    I had to cringe today at the beatup of Dame Kiri for, well, for telling it like it is really.
    Plain speaking always holds a place in my heart.


  10. Ken,
    The poster above was Melanie Phillips,
    who wrote the book “Londonistan”.
    Her comment was a cut and paste from here:

    I haven’t read her books yet but they are definitely on my list


  11. Pat – the commenter was Avant Gardener . He/She obviously did cut and paste (who would write comment that long).

    I doubt if Melanie Phillips would bother commenting here.

    I still can’t see why Avant bothered.


  12. Melanie – although your thread content is not at all convincing it expresses a viewpoint you hold at this point. It may not be unreasonable to expect that your viewpoint will modify as further information passes you by and interaction with others assists processes of understanding more of your personal perspectives.

    Having an answer seems important to you and fits with your rather wide ranging constructs of the position of science as you see it.

    If you could put science and the bible (which is not religion in itself) to one side and look at how learning happens then the encumbrance of a position on your beliefs may be reduced.

    There are no answers to set the path of man’s thinking, just learning. Some people need answers more than others. It is much more difficult for one who needs answers to be open minded but a degree of acceptance of new information is possible for all.

    How you manage your learning and what ideas you hold as being consistent is influenced by the way you function. I suggest the post you have made reflects that.

    Arguing with the many inconsistencies within your post probably has little point as they are very wide ranging.

    If your answer is that the idea of an omnipotent force is not recognised by scientific discussion but should be, then that is OK. It is, has been and can always be.

    Rather than “God” being a problem it may be how people rely on a religious beliefs to justify a range of other matters, which is seen as a problem to those who don’t bow to such restriction to their thinking.


  13. Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author. She is best known for her controversial columns on political and social issues Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996, she is the author of All Must Have Prizes, Londonistan and several other books. Styled a conservative by her opponents, she prefers to think of herself as defending authentic liberal values against the attempt to destroy western culture from within.”

    So, good luck Woody..


  14. Max Whitaker

    Ken: Given you seem unable to read Avants post – as it is a little too long for you, and she has already attempted option two….

    I’ll opt for approach one:

    Dawkins is full of bullshit.


  15. So, Max, are you an Aussie?

    Sent from my iPod


  16. Max Whitaker

    I lived there for long enough to pick up the lingo – but nope.


  17. you seem unable to read Avants post – as it is a little too long for you…

    You don’t understand.
    Reading is not the problem.

    It’s that Avant did a cut-and-paste job.
    (Not really much thought required there.)

    Cut-and-pastes seldom inspire people to offer serious commentary.

    If you can’t be bothered to write something of your own with a little thought and imagination then…why should you expect anything better in reply?

    Second, Avant’s cut-and-paste has nothing to do with the post.
    Nothing at all.
    Epic fail.

    Third, Melanie Phillips is a tool.
    She’s utterly clueless about science.
    Her articles regularly reek of “teh stupid”.
    This particular one is an intellectual train wreck, lurching from one inane and vapid assertion to another.

    The effort that is required to deconstruct the mess doesn’t really seem worth it.
    After all, it’s just a cut-and-paste job and not even Avant has stuck around to explain anything about it.

    Dawkins is full of bullshit.

    A tad vague.
    Which of his books do you disagree with?
    Do you have any specifics or did you just want to get that off your chest before having a lie down?


  18. Max Whitaker

    “Dawkins is full of bullshit.

    A tad vague.
    Which of his books do you disagree with?
    Do you have any specifics or did you just want to get that off your chest before having a lie down?”

    I think you kinda missed the point there somewhere Cedric… I was merely applying the same strategy the Aussie battler did to… oh never min. Jokes are so much funnier when you don’t have to explain them to people…


  19. Jokes are so much funnier when you don’t have to explain them to people…

    It also helps if the “joke” is genuinely funny in the first place.


  20. Max Whitaker

    Oh dear….


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s