Print
Response to Theodore Dalrymple
by Sam Harris
Reposted from:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html?sr=show
Sam Harris responds to the article "What the new atheists don't see" by Theodore Dalrymple:
First, let me confess that I have long enjoyed Theodore Dalrymple's writing. This only became an inconvenience yesterday, in fact, when I learned that Dalrymple had subjected my first book, The End of Faith, to especially malicious treatment in the pages of this magazine. I hope readers of City Journal will believe me when I say that it's not every day I discover a writer whom I admire vilifying me in print. But there was Dalrymple, denouncing me for my "sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple," for my "assumption of certainty where there is none," and for my "adolescent shrillness and intolerance." As if these weren't deficiencies enough, Dalrymple went on to declare me both a "sinister" person and the author of "quite possibly the most disgraceful" sentences ever written by "a man posing as a rationalist." Where, I wonder, will Dalrymple be when I need my next blurb?
Beyond simply hating my book, Dalrymple seems to imagine that he has exposed me for what I am: not merely a fraud, and a lazy thinker, but a genocidal maniac. On Dalrymple's reading, everyone who liked The End of Faith—my editor at Norton, the critics who favorably reviewed it, the deluded souls at the PEN America Foundation who awarded it their prize for nonfiction in 2005—must have simply skipped the chapter where I recommend that we murder millions of innocent people for thought crimes. Granted, the few sentences that Dalrymple lifted from my book with forensic care, like bloody fingerprints, seem alarming when viewed out of context. Indeed, I appreciated this liability when I wrote them. I am very happy to report, however, that no devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew—many of whom detested The End of Faith—has had the gall to excerpt these sentences and intentionally mislead readers the way Dalrymple has. His summary of my views is among the least honest I have come across, and his criticism of the "new atheist" bestsellers the least enlightening. This is more of an accomplishment, in fact, than it may appear. The race to the bottom has been fast and furious.
Needless to say, Dalrymple is not the first critic to respond to Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and me as though we were a single person with four heads. He is not the first to claim, somewhat paradoxically, that our criticism of religion goes much too far without, he is sorry to report, going so far as to say anything new. He is not the first professed "atheist" to suggest that, while he can get along just fine without an imaginary friend, most human beings will always need to delude themselves about God—nor is he the first to fail to see just how condescending and unimaginative one must be to believe such a thing about the rest of humanity. Dalymple is, however, the first in one respect: he is the first writer to claim that he could have produced every argument found in the "new atheist" books ("with the possible exception of Dennett's") by the tender age of 14. I do not doubt this for a moment—though this leaves me wondering how many blows to the head Dalrymple has suffered in the intervening years.
In lieu of answering our arguments against faith—in lieu, even, of noticing them—Dalrymple simply misses the point of our books outright. He misses it petulantly at first, but his obliviousness to matters of substance soon swells to something like exultation. He then delivers what he clearly imagines to be the killing blow, comparing our misbegotten work to a few religious meditations he deems especially profound. Perhaps it was meant as a further insult to us that he sought to convey the invidious gulf between the "new atheists" and certain "Anglican divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries" by furnishing the readers of this journal with some of the most banal religious meanderings ever recorded. But I fear there is not this much method in Dalrymple's madness. The man appears simply lost. He sees neither what is worst about religion, nor what is best, with anything like clarity. It's a pity we don't have the 14-year-old Dalrymple to reckon with. Then we all might have learned something.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html?sr=show
Sam Harris responds to the article "What the new atheists don't see" by Theodore Dalrymple:
First, let me confess that I have long enjoyed Theodore Dalrymple's writing. This only became an inconvenience yesterday, in fact, when I learned that Dalrymple had subjected my first book, The End of Faith, to especially malicious treatment in the pages of this magazine. I hope readers of City Journal will believe me when I say that it's not every day I discover a writer whom I admire vilifying me in print. But there was Dalrymple, denouncing me for my "sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple," for my "assumption of certainty where there is none," and for my "adolescent shrillness and intolerance." As if these weren't deficiencies enough, Dalrymple went on to declare me both a "sinister" person and the author of "quite possibly the most disgraceful" sentences ever written by "a man posing as a rationalist." Where, I wonder, will Dalrymple be when I need my next blurb?
Beyond simply hating my book, Dalrymple seems to imagine that he has exposed me for what I am: not merely a fraud, and a lazy thinker, but a genocidal maniac. On Dalrymple's reading, everyone who liked The End of Faith—my editor at Norton, the critics who favorably reviewed it, the deluded souls at the PEN America Foundation who awarded it their prize for nonfiction in 2005—must have simply skipped the chapter where I recommend that we murder millions of innocent people for thought crimes. Granted, the few sentences that Dalrymple lifted from my book with forensic care, like bloody fingerprints, seem alarming when viewed out of context. Indeed, I appreciated this liability when I wrote them. I am very happy to report, however, that no devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew—many of whom detested The End of Faith—has had the gall to excerpt these sentences and intentionally mislead readers the way Dalrymple has. His summary of my views is among the least honest I have come across, and his criticism of the "new atheist" bestsellers the least enlightening. This is more of an accomplishment, in fact, than it may appear. The race to the bottom has been fast and furious.
Needless to say, Dalrymple is not the first critic to respond to Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and me as though we were a single person with four heads. He is not the first to claim, somewhat paradoxically, that our criticism of religion goes much too far without, he is sorry to report, going so far as to say anything new. He is not the first professed "atheist" to suggest that, while he can get along just fine without an imaginary friend, most human beings will always need to delude themselves about God—nor is he the first to fail to see just how condescending and unimaginative one must be to believe such a thing about the rest of humanity. Dalymple is, however, the first in one respect: he is the first writer to claim that he could have produced every argument found in the "new atheist" books ("with the possible exception of Dennett's") by the tender age of 14. I do not doubt this for a moment—though this leaves me wondering how many blows to the head Dalrymple has suffered in the intervening years.
In lieu of answering our arguments against faith—in lieu, even, of noticing them—Dalrymple simply misses the point of our books outright. He misses it petulantly at first, but his obliviousness to matters of substance soon swells to something like exultation. He then delivers what he clearly imagines to be the killing blow, comparing our misbegotten work to a few religious meditations he deems especially profound. Perhaps it was meant as a further insult to us that he sought to convey the invidious gulf between the "new atheists" and certain "Anglican divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries" by furnishing the readers of this journal with some of the most banal religious meanderings ever recorded. But I fear there is not this much method in Dalrymple's madness. The man appears simply lost. He sees neither what is worst about religion, nor what is best, with anything like clarity. It's a pity we don't have the 14-year-old Dalrymple to reckon with. Then we all might have learned something.
Theodore Dalrymple responds:
I understand why Mr. Harris feels strongly about the way in which I expressed myself, and perhaps I was a little intemperate, in which case I apologize.
There seem to me three main points to discuss. First, the existence of God; second, the actual historical record of organized religion; third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence without God.
The arguments for and against the existence of God are by now pretty well rehearsed, and I do not think that any of the new atheists (I call them that because their books came out at about the same time) add anything much to them. They are not entirely to blame for this: it would take a very great philosopher to do so. I certainly have nothing new to say on the matter.
Second, the historiography of religion employed by most of these authors, though admittedly not by Daniel Dennett, is one of bringing up only damning evidence. This does not seem to me to be an honest appraisal of religion's role in human history, but one that is emotionally parti pris and fundamentally intolerant. It would be possible to write a history of medicine using only the stupidity and ignorance of doctors, and the harm that they had done, as material; but that would not be the history of medicine in its entirety.
Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier. Many people would find the reverse to be true.
Finally, with regard to Mr. Harris's statement that it may be ethical to kill people with certain (unspecified) ideas: for myself, I fear the likelihood of mission creep. I cannot help recalling the wise words of a great British judge, Lord Mansfield, who said in the eighteenth century that so long as an act remains in bare intention alone it is not punishable by our law. Killing people for their thoughts alone is not a recipe for anything except bloody disaster.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 63 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #85203 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 am
I for one am very, very happy to see Sam Harris's rebuttal in these pages, because I find myself in the same dilemma as he. I have always enjoyed Theodore Dalrymple's writings; Life at the Bottom is one of the best collection of essays I have ever read.Dalrymple knows well the horrors that Islam routinely commits, so I am unsure as to what his review was on about.
Anyway, props to Sam Harris again.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
3. Comment #85204 by nickthelight on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 am
To accuse "new atheists" of not having any new arguments against the existence of god seems ironic. How long can you flog a dead horse for anyway? Other Comments by nickthelight
4. Comment #85208 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 9:38 am
I understand why Mr. Harris feels strongly about the way in which I expressed myself, and perhaps I was a little intemperate, in which case I apologize.
Yikes that is considerably tail-between-legsish for Theodore Dalrymple. He should just forget about atheism and stick to what he's good at: roaming the bad places of the world decrying wickedness and declaring the imminent doom of civilisation.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
5. Comment #85212 by dbunker on November 5, 2007 at 9:48 am
I'm grateful that America's founders thought that comfortable delusions,though they may have made a difficult life more easily tolerated, were not as valuable as reason, logic and the search for truth as the basis for running a new country.They had some confidence in the peoples' ability to accept that responsibility. Mr. Dalrymple seems to suggest that the "unwashed masses" are not up to a similar task in their personal lives.
That is a shame.
Other Comments by dbunker
6. Comment #85230 by BicycleRepairMan on November 5, 2007 at 10:21 am
Killing people for their thoughts alone is not a recipe for anything except bloody disaster.Again with the out-of-context'ing , Sam is ver clear in TEOF on this, talking about specific what-if scenarios, where unreasonable-ness is completely out of control. Take the man who slaughtered Theo Van Gogh in broad daylight in Amsterdam, then stabbed a knife through his ribcase passing a note on the way saying "Ayaan Hirsi Ali"
Imagine if he and a group of likeminded individuals where to come across a nuclear weapon.
Thoughtcrime my ass. That requires thinking. And the last time I read "1984" ,compulsory Doublethink is not thinking, its the opposite.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
7. Comment #85238 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 10:48 am
It's a pity we don't have the 14-year-old Dalrymple to reckon with. Then we all might have learned something.________
Oooh, such delicious snark, I want more.
Other Comments by Logicel
8. Comment #85244 by konquererz on November 5, 2007 at 10:59 am
There haven't been any new arguments from the New Atheists, at least not allot. The problem is that people still aren't getting them. Atheists are still slamming the same god hypothesis that they were years ago. Atheists still have the better argument. But theists just aren't listening, aren't reading, and aren't intelligent enough to understand the world with out an invisible friend. They won't progress past the stage of child hood. Other Comments by konquererz
9. Comment #85248 by clodhopper on November 5, 2007 at 11:02 am
Belief in belief again....yawn. Why, I wonder, does Dalyrymple offer so little other than criticism for the sake of it? Other Comments by clodhopper
10. Comment #85254 by Mango on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 am
A professor I spoke with this weekend decried that the new atheists are not bringing any new ideas. I replied, "Yes, but who has yet to respond to Russell's teapot?" He moved on.This is more of an accomplishment, in fact, than it may appear. The race to the bottom has been fast and furious.
Harris is hilarious sometimes.
Other Comments by Mango
11. Comment #85255 by etny on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 am
All this is quite simple. It has nothing to do with reasoned arguments, and the "intemperate" tone explains it away: it's all about JEALOUSY. Dalrymple and many others are absolutely gutted that Harris, Dawkins & Hitch are selling so many books and making so much money. Of course, Sam can't really bring this up, but I'm sure he knows better. So do we.Other Comments by etny
12. Comment #85261 by notsobad on November 5, 2007 at 11:31 am
Second, the historiography of religion employed by most of these authors, though admittedly not by Daniel Dennett, is one of bringing up only damning evidence. This does not seem to me to be an honest appraisal of religion's role in human history, but one that is emotionally parti pris and fundamentally intolerant. It would be possible to write a history of medicine using only the stupidity and ignorance of doctors, and the harm that they had done, as material; but that would not be the history of medicine in its entirety.
It's because the good things done by religious could and can be done without religion and faith, while the bad things could hardly be done without religion and faith (and that applies to any other totalitarian ideology).
The analogy with medicine fails too, of course. You wouldn't be able to do the medicine-related good things without medicine.
Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier.
If you have time to seriously think about something like "metaphysical difficulties of human existence" you got to be relatively well off and bored at the same time, you know, like a philosopher, theologian or such.
Other Comments by notsobad
13. Comment #85265 by cowalker on November 5, 2007 at 11:39 am
Dalrymple:The arguments for and against the existence of God are by now pretty well rehearsed, and I do not think that any of the new atheists (I call them that because their books came out at about the same time) add anything much to them. They are not entirely to blame for this: it would take a very great philosopher to do so.
No new arguments, eh. I think the real problem is no new evidence. Arguments based on the evidence we have do not compel belief in God. There is no possible evidence or argument that will disprove the existence of a being that by definition is not directly perceptible. So the ball is in the believers' court. New evidence please.
Other Comments by cowalker
14. Comment #85269 by gr_man on November 5, 2007 at 11:42 am
It seems to me that it doesn't matter that the so called "new atheists" aren't bringing anything new to the table (which is demonstrably wrong anyway), because the old arguments against god should be sufficient to make any rational person a non-believer anyway.I am inclined to agree when people say that there may be a jealousy issue at play here. I am also drawn to contemplate the statement that Dalrymple (and others) make regarding the fact that the "new atheists" tend to focus on the negative history of religion, and ignore all the good. First off, I have read references to the good deeds of religion in all the "big four" authors' books, which should, in theory, make this statement a little bit of a non-truth. Secondly why should the so called good deeds of religion make up for all of the atrocities committed in the name of all things holy? It doesn't in my book. Religion should be made to answer for the atrocities of the past before it should even be considered for praise for the good deeds.
Other Comments by gr_man
15. Comment #85272 by jimbob on November 5, 2007 at 11:45 am
...has had the gall to excerpt these sentences and intentionally mislead readers the way Dalrymple has. His summary of my views is among the least honest I have come across, and his criticism of the "new atheist" bestsellers the least enlightening. This is more of an accomplishment, in fact, than it may appear. The race to the bottom has been fast and furious.
This is why this site needs a "Oops, there goes #9 section." Let's let the list of falsehoods speak for itself when it comes to the argument about religion vs non-belief and morality.
Other Comments by jimbob
16. Comment #85277 by Clappers on November 5, 2007 at 11:59 am
On a previous post I mentioned that I am seeing Theodore Dalrymple next Monday evening at a Gladstone club meeting, where I plan on challenging him. Anyone interested in coming to the National Liberal Club, Whitehall, Monday 12th Nov, starts at 7pm.This is supposed to be the agenda:
"Comparing observations from 14 years as a
psychiatrist in an English inner-city hospital with his experiences in
Afghanistan, Africa and Eastern Europe Dr. Dalrymple raises the appalling
proposition that prospects for those at the bottom are worst here."
Other Comments by Clappers
17. Comment #85287 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 5, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Sam Harris wrote: "Dalymple is, however, the first in one respect: he is the first writer to claim that he could have produced every argument found in the "new atheist" books ("with the possible exception of Dennett's") by the tender age of 14. I do not doubt this for a moment—though this leaves me wondering how many blows to the head Dalrymple has suffered in the intervening years."Wowza!
You know a couple of weeks ago, when I said Sam was incapable of rhetorical rough-housing? I take it back.
Holy Sh*t that was a zinger.
Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber
18. Comment #85288 by GoatBoy36 on November 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Fanusi,just thought I'd let you know that I posted again on that "plight of ex-Muslims" thread. As to this article: well written by Sam Harris, as always. He really kicks Dalrymple in the nuts. Great stuff.
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
19. Comment #85295 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Can I for one say that I'm sick and tired of the theists rant of "no new arguments" hogwash?How about:
1) We've sequenced Cro-Magnon DNA and found that they are not in our lineage.
2) We now know quite a bit about the brain and its workings because of functional MRI as well as the study of human brain disease and trauma. We know very well that you are your brain down to specific collections of neurons as is your personality and everything that makes you non-monkey.
3) Given DNA, forensic, anthropological, archaeological, and geological evidence we know that humans (in their present form) have been around for over 100,000 years. God is only a few thousand years old, thus he is manmade.
4) etc...
The science we've learned in the last 25 years is a game-changer to the classical arguments. Nothing new? Again, religionists confortably occupy the past and aren't acquainted with modern science and modern logic.
Other Comments by squinky
20. Comment #85298 by Goldy on November 5, 2007 at 12:57 pm
We've sequenced Cro-Magnon DNA and found that they are not in our lineage
Neanderthal, surely? But I do agree with your point so forgive me my flippancy! :-)
What do athiests have to offer? There are arguments a-plenty but as nothing is new under the sun and still we are shackled by belief in supernatural deities, what can we say? For thousands of years, we have grappled with living and the meaning of life. We have ascribed celestial and earthly phenomena to gods and yet found we are masters of our own actions and destinies.
What point am I trying to make....sit back and read the poetic prose I have tapped into this box...OK. Soon, we shall be weaning our daughter off her dummy. She only really uses it to sleep now. We try different things to occupy her when she asks for it, like reading books or making her brush her teeth. However, it'll be a hard process and there will be tears. But she'll stop eventually :-)
Theists are like her in a way - they have their dummy. We athiests have arguments to show that they have another option, one where they are in control (within reason) and that they don't need to follow strange ideas (the eruv story might ring a bell, as does that JW dying for lack of any rational reason) and let these irrationalities rule their lives. But they don't listen. What more arguments can we give when they are not ready for the simplest ones? Give them time to absorb the old arguments before flummoxing them with new.
Other Comments by Goldy
21. Comment #85299 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Squinky: I strongly agree. Developments in physics in the past century or so have made many theological arguments redundant. An idea of a Creator who sets up the universe and waits for people to appear has been shown to be impossible by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Discussions of the origin of the universe that involve a beginning of time or an eternal universe that has always existed as the only alternatives are out of date. There is no 'first cause' problem if causality as we understand it was not involved in the origin of the universe. Other Comments by steve99
22. Comment #85303 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Comment #85299 by steve99Squinky: I strongly agree. Developments in physics in the past century or so have made many theological arguments redundant.
Philosophical ones too. The development of anthropology, sociology, psychology and linguistics as well as neuroscience have reduced its scope enormously.
Perhaps one of the few things that remains to them both is ethics, but of course you don't need god to behave ethically.
Other Comments by epeeist
23. Comment #85321 by Ian on November 5, 2007 at 1:37 pm
We've sequenced Cro-Magnon DNA and found that they are not in our lineage
Just to back up Goldy, cro-magnon were amatomically modern humans.
Etny, I agree with your assessment: there is a jealousy issue here, not for money but attention.
Other Comments by Ian
24. Comment #85328 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Steve and Epeeist,I tend to favor the biological refutations of theology over the use of physics. Laymen easily get overwhelmed by cosmic scales and geological time. If you saw (here at RDF) Hitchens debate Dinesh d'Souza you'll see what I mean. Dinesh likes to use God as the omnipotent 'knob fiddler' to set cosmological constants (speed of light, strong nuclear force, etc) and then argue design. He also says that the exceptions to 'laws' of nature allow for miracles (technically, relativity overtakes Newtonian mechanics as cosmic scale and the rules of matter and light are suspended right after the big band so in a way the rules can be broken). It plays well to naive people.
The better tack is to take d'Souza apart with biology which is much closer to us and easier for laymen to comprehend. Any scientist could bury him. Questions like: so did humans evolve? Yes? then I'll bet half of your Christian audience--the true believers--just stopped listening to you. Or No? So you don't believe in radioisotope dating nor in telling time either I gather?
As to philosophy and psychology, I studied the classics early and must say I disliked much of the tradition. It appeared to me as a young scientist searching for answers to be open-ended speculation without rigor. All philosophers create great hypotheses but then never validated their observations because the scientific method was not yet mature. Case in point: Freud. Complete nonsense with a smattering of truth but hey, cold readings from psychics are partly true too!. Philosophy and psych have been transformed recently by science because of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. It's the gold-standard. The rest is history!
Other Comments by squinky
25. Comment #85329 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm
In addition, there is a new vehicle for getting out those old atheist arguments, the Net!!! With online debate/discussion/commenting, people can get a tighter grasp on these ideas with more and more people being exposed to them via videos, cartoons, etc. Other Comments by Logicel
26. Comment #85334 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Correction:We've sequenced neanderthal DNA (in triplicate by the way), not Cro-Magnon. My hasty error.
By the way, neanderthals may have been able to speak:
http://www.latimes.com/la-sci-neanderthals20oct20,0,7642357.story?coll=la-home-center
Other Comments by squinky
27. Comment #85336 by ridelo on November 5, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I think it would not be a bad idea if Sam Harris and Theodore Dalrymple should set up an Internet discussion - like the one between Sam and Andrew Sullivan - after the smoke of the gunfight has cleared away. A lot of misunderstandings could also be cleared away.Du choc des idées jaillit la lumière.
Other Comments by ridelo
28. Comment #85341 by Roger Stanyard on November 5, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Why should Sam Harris or anyone else take any notice of Theodore Dalrymple. He's a whinging old fart and always has been.See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article698981.ece
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
29. Comment #85343 by steveroot on November 5, 2007 at 2:14 pm
26. Comment #85334 by squinky on November 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm
By the way, neanderthals may have been able to speak...
They also may have had red hair!
http://anthropology.net/2007/10/25/red-haired-neandertals/
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
30. Comment #85365 by ukantic on November 5, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I tend to agree with Dalrymple over the lack originality of some of the arguments put forward by atheists, but then again that charge can be made against theists as well. Or as they say, pot – kettle – black!However, that doesn't detract one iota from the fact that never before have the strands of atheistic thought come together with such force, clarity & effect as it has with the output of the, "new atheists".
It is irrelevant if atheistic viewpoints sound jaded to the initiated, because to the public who are buying these best selling books in their masses, they must come as revelation – and that is all that really counts.
Alan.
http://www.creationism.co.uk
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/
Other Comments by ukantic
31. Comment #85372 by Russell Blackford on November 5, 2007 at 3:31 pm
It's true that there's not all that much originality in the arguments against God's existence. The details of the science have changed, but if you went back to the relevant articles in the monumental Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Paul Edwards in 1967, you'd find that it's pretty much all there. Even the ultimate 747 gambit is not entirely new, and RD has not claimed that it is (though I don't think this particular argument was developed in quite the same aggressive way by, say, Hume).But that's not the point. The point is that we need popular, entertaining - yet intelligent - books to debunk religion for contemporary times. They should be up-to-date with the detail of the current science, laid out with a fair bit of elaboration, and relevant to contemporary policy issues such as the organised militancy of American Christian fundamentalism, the reactionary leadership of the Catholic Church, and the menace of radical Islam. We've been getting that, and should applaud the New Atheism (viewed as a wider publishing phenomenon rather than a monster with four heads).
I also think that Dalrymple is right if he thinks that, in contemporary circumstances, a sudden universal loss of religion would cause problems. That's a tragic situation - for too many people, religion is the only opiate. We really do need to try to change global economic conditions (not least in the US) to make people feel more secure and less embroiled in a day-by-day struggle just to survive.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
32. Comment #85373 by maton100 on November 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Doll-rimple must mean the "existential difficulties." There appears to be no metaphysical difficulty at all... Other Comments by maton100
33. Comment #85384 by Duff on November 5, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Professor Blackford,You may not be a professor, but I think of you that way.
You may think a "sudden universal loss of religion" would cause problems, but I think you fret too much.
Why would a sudden abandonment of superstition be a bad thing? If the unwashed, simple people, suddenly realized the nonsense they have always believed is false, it could only be because they have seen the light of something much more edifying. Seeing the light would be such an "enlightening", freshening thing, it would change the world.
I won't hold my breath.
Other Comments by Duff
34. Comment #85390 by Arcturus on November 5, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Darlymple's medicine argument is completely bogus. If you want to have a relevant example, imagine medicine practiced today and shamanism. For sure there might have been some benefits of shamanism milenia ago, but imagine it was practiced today alongside medicine ... there's your comparison!If we were consecvent in discarding wrong and outdated ideas and practices, religion is where humanity has failed miserably.
Other Comments by Arcturus
35. Comment #85414 by John Done on November 5, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Did Dalrymple just ignore how Harris mentioned the so-called thoughtcrime suggestions that he supposedly made in his book? Harris never suggested that we kill people for their beliefs. Ever. The closest thing I encountered was when he worried aloud (as he tends to do) about the nightmarish possiblity of using extreme methods to survive a murderous onslaught brought about by religious fanatacism. That Dalrymple continues to present this most deplorable of all strawmen to the general public is most dishonest, nearly insidious. What exactly was it that Harris admired in him again?Other Comments by John Done
36. Comment #85430 by keith on November 5, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Atticus_of_Amber, Wowza!
You know a couple of weeks ago, when I said Sam was incapable of rhetorical rough-housing? I take it back.
Holy Sh*t that was a zinger.
Atticus, did you use to write Batman comics?
BicycleRepairMan
Killing people for their thoughts alone is not a recipe for anything except bloody disaster.
Again with the out-of-context'ing , Sam is ver clear in TEOF on this, talking about specific what-if scenarios, where unreasonable-ness is completely out of control. Take the man who slaughtered Theo Van Gogh in broad daylight in Amsterdam, then stabbed a knife through his ribcase passing a note on the way saying "Ayaan Hirsi Ali"
Imagine if he and a group of likeminded individuals where to come across a nuclear weapon.
Thoughtcrime my ass. That requires thinking. And the last time I read "1984" ,compulsory Doublethink is not thinking, its the opposite.
Pardon?
Other Comments by keith
37. Comment #85442 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 5, 2007 at 10:29 pm
keith wrote: "Atticus, did you use to write Batman comics?"No, but I saw a Adam West Batman era "POW!" on my screen when I read the above-quoted zinger.
Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber
38. Comment #85445 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 5, 2007 at 10:41 pm
*nods* I saw your posts GoatBoy; they were good. That's a portion of history I should like to know more closely.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
39. Comment #85467 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 1:18 am
Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier. Many people would find the reverse to be true.
As far as I can tell, the only "metaphysical difficulties" that would really be present is the human propensity to anthropmorphize things, including the non- existent. I could be wrong though.
Other Comments by Garnok
40. Comment #85518 by GoatBoy36 on November 6, 2007 at 3:54 am
Fanusi,I can't recommend Ernle Bradford's book "The Great Siege" enough, it's just excellent.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Siege-Wordsworth-Military-Library/dp/1840222069/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-0993109-8164711
(You can "look inside" the book on Amazon there.)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9A0DE5DA1231F93BA1575AC0A960948260
I'm planning to go to Malta next spring, I'll be thinking of the people who fought off the Muslims forces as I stroll around Valetta.
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
41. Comment #85523 by Russell Blackford on November 6, 2007 at 4:04 am
Duff, no I'm definitely not a professor and I'm sure the prospect of ever being one is unlikely (and ever-receding). I do have a doctorate but no one would ever call me Dr Blackford, either - first names, please.I agree with the commment by maton100 that Dalrymple must surely have meant something like "existential difficulties". I'm not actually fretting about this: while there are many people who would be left bereft if they lost their religious faith overnight, not that's not how it happens. If abandonment of religion is going to be gradual, as it will have to be if it happens at all, I don't actually agree with Dalrymple's comment.
But all I really want is for people to realise how dubious religion is and what a terrible basis it is for public policy.
I don't actually care all that much if some people cling to their personal faith, though I do reserve the right to think they are wasting their lives if it leads them to act in ways that are self-abnegating, or which deny them the pleasures of this wonderful, one-and-only life in the hope of the chimerical ones of a non-existent afterlife.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
42. Comment #85532 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 5:11 am
Arcturus,If we were consecvent in discarding wrong and outdated ideas and practices, religion is where humanity has failed miserably.
Im fascinated by your use and spelling of the word 'consequent'. You used it in the same way a German-speaker would and also misspelt it (though not in a German way and the rest of your English was faultless). I'm convinced that English is lacking precisely this word, the German word 'Konsequent', as I don't think that the English 'consequent' has the same meaning or that any other word we have does. Please put me out of my misery and tell me it was just a simple misspelling and nothing more.
Other Comments by keith
43. Comment #85535 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 5:22 am
Ukantic,I agree with all of your points except the one about the pot calling the kettle black. That would be the case if Dalrymple were a theist but he isn't. He's an atheist.
Other Comments by keith
44. Comment #85553 by MarquisDeSade on November 6, 2007 at 6:31 am
How many blows to the head DID he suffer?"This does not seem to me to be an honest appraisal of religion's role in human history, but one that is emotionally parti pris and fundamentally intolerant. It would be possible to write a history of medicine using only the stupidity and ignorance of doctors, and the harm that they had done, as material; but that would not be the history of medicine in its entirety."
A poor, poor analogy. And one that was deliberately chosen not for it's analogous quality (it has none) but because it misleads. Medicine is employed specifically to help, to cure, to relieve, and not to harm, to subjugate, and psychologically manipulate as religion does. Either way, you cannot analogously equate a science of restoring health to whatever it is religion might be considered. If one thing is clear, religion is not a science of restoring health, or anything close, so Dalrymple has no business employing medicine for use in his analogy.
Other Comments by MarquisDeSade
45. Comment #85557 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 6:57 am
Atticus,Yes, I remember old fatty West too. The way he used to scale those walls with such ease used to amaze me as a kid - until my older brother told me to watch the TV lying on my side and then all became clear.
Other Comments by keith
46. Comment #85561 by Arcturus on November 6, 2007 at 7:15 am
Keith,I'm sorry. I didn't know english does not have "consecvent". I'm not a native english speaker, I'm Romanian. I see what you are saying, english should have "consecvent". The word I intended to put there was "consistent".
Funny enough, the word that is missing from romaninan is "delusion". We have "illusion" but "delusion" has a completely different meaning - "disillusion". What a pity.
Other Comments by Arcturus
47. Comment #85584 by 35bluejacket on November 6, 2007 at 9:17 am
The comparison Dalrymple makes between the history of medicine and the history of religion shows that he fails to see that religion doesn't evolve in thought (unlike medicine) past its first few generations, In fact religion appears to become more corrupt. Its refusal to evolve is rooted in its theology.Other Comments by 35bluejacket
48. Comment #85597 by Conrad on November 6, 2007 at 10:56 am
I would like to add as an aside that if one set out to write a book about the evils of any topic, then no one should be surprised to see that all the good it may have done doesn't get alot of page time. Frankly it isn't the purpose of the book.In effect such a criticism reads like: "Hey, I don't like your book criticising reilgion. All it does is criticise religion."
Even so in each book there is reference to what religion has done that may have been helpful in human history. Though by the premise, you shouldn't expect that section to be too long.
Other Comments by Conrad
49. Comment #85613 by drbreakfast on November 6, 2007 at 12:15 pm
The thing that is incredibly tiring to me from religious apologists and/or critics of atheism (beyond the usual "arguments" that we all know), is the claim that the "new atheists" are saying nothing new. To assert the charge that "I was saying these arguments against the notion of God when I was 14" really says nothing at all. Bravo, you outgrew your belief in Santa Claus too.Why is the burden on those who simply say, "I see no evidence to believe in some supernatural being." As RD put it that the AAI conference, the likelihood of the existence of a god/gods vs. no god/gods is not a 50/50 proposition. Moreover, since there are some many gods/religious traditions to choose from (and perhaps, sadly, more on the way), the odds are even more favorable to disbelief as being correct.
I was really feed up with the debate between Sharpton and Hitchens because Sharpton kept coming up with the "first cause" argument. There are a lot of steps that one has to navigate as a matter of logic/history and science to go from the assertion that there is/was a creator of all to the Christian God. Why do most theists/religious apologists not see this?
Other Comments by drbreakfast
50. Comment #85632 by gr8hands on November 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Dalrymple appears unaware that in medicine, unlike religion, when something doesn't work -- it is discarded. We don't drill holes in your head to let out evil spirits causing headaches any more. We have antibiotics and vaccines now, because witch hazel wasn't effective.Nothing new? How about medical technology that is allowing some regeneration of fingers that have been cut off? Not through prayer (visit http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ for a thorough discussion on that topic), but through medicine, through science. Not by divine revelation, but atheist scientists working in the lab.
Nothing new? Go to www.ted.com/ and look at some of the groundbreaking work in neuroscience -- they've discovered the cause of phantom limb syndrome, and effective treatment (using just a mirror), and all manner of other amazing breakthrough. You can see that we're learning how the brain perceives and believes, and why it is likely that we evolved a belief in religion in the first place.
Nothing new? The data from cosmological experiments and testing are shedding new light on the reality of the universe -- and amazingly, no god was mentioned being found. (By the way, where is it written that god exists but can't be detected?)
Nothing new? Archeological evidence is constantly uncovered which contradicts the accuracy of religious texts, which is impossible if they are from an infallible divine god.
Nothing new? All geological evidence shows that the religious texts are completely wrong when they discuss anything related to geology. The same for when they discuss medicine, astronomy, etc.
Nothing new? We are able to create at will the 'out of body experience', 'near death experience', 'presence of another being not visible' -- all artificially via science, which easily explains how these are merely aberrations of normal human brain functions, and not anything supernatural.
Dalrymple needs to apologize for failure to do any research, for being amazingly ignorant about his subjects, and for the poor quality of his writing in this article.
Other Comments by gr8hands
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
Richard Dawkins
"Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye..."
Richard Dawkins
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson
"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam -- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system."
Gore Vidal
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Clarence Darrow
Other Recommended Reading
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #85202 by crumbledfingers on November 5, 2007 at 9:34 am
I wonder if Dalrymple has read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger? That book contains many up-to-date cosmological observations that were not available in the early days, and derives new arguments from them (many of them variations on older themes, but definitely novel counter-evidence).As to his second point. This is just flat-out not reading the books he's supposed to be criticizing. Dawkins repeatedly states in the God Delusion that religion may have many palliative effects on people, but he's more interested in the importance of truth. I wonder if Dalrymple has read Hitchens on religious "charity," in which he notes that the terrorist organization Hamas is now known to donate to the poor and homeless. Does that count as points for their religion's truth value? Certainly not. But the real squirmer is: does it mean Hamas is a force for good? That seems to be unequivocally false, since the benefits they confer could easily come from a non-violent (or non-religious) source.
Other Comments by crumbledfingers