Checking for accuracy
I was re-reading a bit of Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God this morning, and I encountered something odd. It’s in chapter 12, “Death of God”; she gives an account of Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA and how it works, and then says:
But the new atheists will have none of this, and in his somewhat immoderate way, Dawkins denounces Gould as a quisling.
There’s no reference. Well where did he say that? I wondered. I knew he’d used the word at one point, but I didn’t think it was about Gould. I read the bit about NOMA in The God Delusion, and it’s not there. When I got on the computer I googled it, and got nothing.
I don’t think he said it. I think Armstrong made a mistake. Does anybody know?
He did call Martin Rees a quisling, apropos of the Templeton Foundation. But that’s a different matter. It seems to me unlikely on the face of it that he would have called Gould that – they disagreed sharply about a lot of things, but (to the best of my knowledge) in a collegial way.
Well, what can one do about it, but call Her out, on that statement. See what she say’s..
FWIW, the word ‘quisling’ doesn’t appear anywhere in TGD.
And anyway, even if Dawkins didn’t actually say it, he’s so mean and shrill and strident that it’s exactly the sort of thing that he would have said.
Welcome to Liars for Jebus ;)
I think the logic here is that Dawkins has in the past called accomodationists (or at least one of them) quislings. Accomodationists often use NOMA as a way of telling gnus to stop criticising religion. It follows that Gould must be an accomodationist. Therefore Dawkins called Gould a quisling.
I don’t think Gould was in the same league of accomodationism as the current batch of templeton feeders. There are many things wrong with NOMA but some of Goulds writing on it are not comfortable reading for the religious, and none too accomodationist in its implications.
For instance, Gould said:
“The first commandment for all version of NOMA might be summarized by stating: “Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science.”
I cannot track down the quote but the idea is out there that Dawkins thought Gould’s idea of NOMA was actually a politically expedient religious accommodation rather than something Gould believed. Perhaps it’s in TGD.
I doubt Dawkins was ever that mean to Gould, but NOMA is a stupid idea, and frankly, it is a deceptive attitude. NOMA presumes that
1) Religion is a valid way of knowing anything. Sitting and thinking or praying is no way of learning anything other than what’s rattling around in your head. Even theoretical physics isn’t really knowing things about the universe until its confirmed by experiments.
2) Religion doesn’t make assertions about science. Of course it does… the only reason it stopped making certain assumptions is that science *forced* it out, by providing explanations that actually work with what is out there.
3) It presumes that religious people are too stupid to realize that NOMA guts their religion. Its presumes to make peace on terms that are unfavorable to religion, so they cede all claims to nature, while allowing them to keep their now impotent sky faeries. I honestly think NOMA is worse than Gnu Atheism, because its trying to get people to trust and believe in science, because hey, it doesn’t really affect your religion, which is complete nonsense. Of course it does. Trying to avoid that conversation doesn’t help anyone.
@ gillt #4
God Delusion (paperback edition, p.81)
I simply do not believe that Gould could have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages. As I say, we have all been guilty of bending over backwards to be nice to be nice to an unworthy but powerful opponent, but I can only think that this is what Gould was doing.
I always thought Gould invented NOMA to keep the goddists from coming anywhere near science. After all, the most obvious NOMA are sense and nonsense.
Oh I know Dawkins disagreed about NOMA, and the TGD quote. But did he call Gould a quisling? I don’t think so.
This isn’t the first time Karen Armstrong has goofed, I think she’s just not very careful:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vx1-1x8p5uoJ:pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/whaaaaa-spuriou.html+Matzke+%22spurious+quote%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
However — Dawkins calling Martin Rees, a fellow of the Royal Society, a “quisling”, is pretty indefensible I think. Why do gnus get so much flack? That kind of thing is a substantial part of the explanation.
I didn’t make that at all clear in the post, did I. I was just asking if Dawkins had called Gould a quisling, not if he’d disagreed with him about NOMA – I knew he had, and so did I. I had big arguments about it with various people when the book came out. That’s probably what made me such a pain in the ass today.
Nick – part of the explanation for why gnus get flack is that Dawkins said something? That’s a bit guilt by association isn’t it?!
How is it guilt by association? Dawkins is one of the de facto leaders of the gnu movement. If he is inappropriately gnasty, observers will, rightly, begin to see this as a feature of the movement. Especially if he gets support in being gnasty, and if his fans act similarly, both of which often happen. One doesn’t often forget being called a quisling. Dawkins’ characterization of a broad range of hard-working, life-long science educators and evolution-defenders as “Chamberlains”, simply because they weren’t hugely hostile to all-religion-in-general, is a similar instance.
Ah, de facto leader covers a multitude of sins, doesn’t it. It makes it possible to pin what one person does on all people who are assumed to follow the de facto leader, thus it becomes ok to give all those people flack because the de facto leader said something. Which is usually called guilt by association.
Anyway, I think it is somewhat quislingesque to hand over the Royal Society for the Templeton Prize ceremony, so I don’t think it’s particularly gnasty to say so.
Armstrong, as we know, is the “Historian of Religion”. As such she does not make mistakes. She is divinely guided. Wemust therefore rewrite the histories to reflect what Armstrong in her infinite wisdom says actually happened. The least Professor Dawkins can do is apologize to the late departed Jay Gould and ask forgiveness. He, and his acolytes, cannot clain innocence – we have the hard evidence.
BTW Ophelia: “rereading” Armstrong?
‘How is it guilt by association? Dawkins is one of the de facto leaders of the gnu movement.’
I wasn’t aware there were any ‘leaders’. I certainly never received my voting papers – in fact, I don’t ever recall registering to vote.
Much as theists and accommodationists might fantasise about Gnu leadership stroking their cats in secret bases under volcanoes like some Bond villain, we aren’t SMERSH or SPECTRE, we’re just people who don’t believe in god and aren’t afraid to say so.
Much as theists and accommodationists might fantasise about Gnu leadership stroking their cats in secret bases under volcanoes like some Bond villain, we aren’t SMERSH or SPECTRE, we’re just people who don’t believe in god and aren’t afraid to say so.
Damn; I was so looking forward to my upcoming tour of the Secret-Under-Volcano-Base. I’ve always imagined it to be like the one in You Only Live Twice. I mean I’ve got the cat and everything. Granted she’s a Tabby rather than a Persian, but still.
For goodness’ sake give it a rest. This is an utterly pointless statement, as you should know if you have any experience or knowledge of what happens when groups of people in society decide it is time to stand up for their rights. This kind of criticism was applied to anti-racist movements, women’s equality movements, and (the one I have some minor personal experience of) gay equality movements.
The main think to realise is that there are no de-facto leaders, and there is no co-ordinated movement. These things tend to be very loosely organised if at all. There are no elections for leaders, no membership cards, no manifesto, no rules.
In all of these situations what happens is that the media and/or opponents of the movement appoint a de-facto leader, and then insist that what he or she does and says applies to all.
This happened in the UK gay equality movements. The ‘gnasty gays’ who outed people and even kissed in the street were then pointed at to show how awful and unpleasant poofs and dykes were.
It’s quite amusing to see someone like Peter Tatchell who was considered greally gnasty years ago now having been turned into a national treasure.
It’s quite hard to use Dawkins as Dr GNasty, because he’s probably only got a few years left before he becomes a National Treasure.
The main thing though, is that this kind of ‘stop being Dr Nasty’ whinge has never, ever, ever worked in any situation like this since time began. It’s a complete waste of time.
However, if you really insist on this tactic, can I suggest you pick on Tim Minchin as Gnasty Gnu? He should do fine – he uses lots of rude words and wears make-up.
[Setting aside the entirely correct points others have made about alleged “de facto leaders” and guilt by association, and of course the fact that OB’s post was about the accuracy of Armstrong’s claim, which was not about Rees…]
You’ve made no case that Dawkins’ accusation is indefensible or inappropriately gnasty. The ONLY question here is whether the characterization
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5304-shame-on-the-national-academy
is accurate. The ONLY question. Rees could be a Fellow of the Most Distinguished Society of Fellows of Fellowship and it would make no difference.* His behavior was a betrayal of science and an ethical failure, and anyone calling him on it was in the right.
*Unless you want me to facetiously note that you, lowly sycophantic worm, are accusing the former Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford of inappropriate and gnasty behavior.
I suspect Sigmund is right. Gould’s remarks about NOMA have always struck me as naive rather than strongly accommodating. I think his views were misguided and lacked a certain clarity of thought, but I get the impression that he was trying to avoid tedious argument rather than concede points to faith-heads.
In today’s climate, we recognise this as accommodationism, but in those days it seemed a lot more reasonable. I think a lot of us were more naive back then. I know I was: I never quite bought the NOMA argument in full, but I was generally sympathetic for a while to the claim that science had nothing to say about gods. I was wrong, but it took a while and a changing Zeitgeist for me to fully understand this. My suspicion is that Gould was caught in the same trap. He irks me in many ways, but I don’t consider him to have been an arch accommodationist.
And couple that with the perpetually vacillating definition of New Atheist, and any old atheist can be assumed to follow the ‘de facto leader’. Ergo any atheist can be guilty by association. Convenient, no?Actually, I suspect it’ll loose its convenience at the point where being so vague, it backfires on the people using it. Probably when outsiders to the debate pick up on the allusions, but don’t know the details of who said what, and start to apply it to atheists based on first impressions.
‘This Nick dude put what words in that Dawkins bloke’s mouth? NAZI Pope? That’s gnasty. Nick must be one of those New Atheists. You know; the gnasty ones.’You just need to wind the clock back in the other direction, to see how the term ‘New Atheist’ was used in the 1980s – way back before it was ever coined in Wired. Paul Kurtz of all people was a ‘New Atheist’ back then*!
* And practically declared the ‘de facto leader’ of the ‘movement’ – Morey R., 1986, The New Atheism and The Erosion of Freedom.
Oooo… I lost some paragraphing!
sailor (@ #14) – not re-reading for pleasure, of course. I have Reasons.
latsot
Well, I can only say – not to me it didn’t. I found it infuriating, and it put a major dent in what had been a very high opinion of Gould. Not least, I hated the casual way he handed morality and meaning over to religion.
I guess I was a gnu avant la lettre.
Yeah, OK. I was just a kid at the time, however, and was devouring books on science. I was very much aware that some of the stuff I was reading in science books, pop-science books and pseudo-science books was bullshit, but my bullshit detector wasn’t yet fully configured.
As I’ve said, I knew some kind of rabbit was away with the automatic-respect-to-religion business, but the usual religious conditioning meant that it took a few years to realise where I was going wrong. I still tend to feel that Gould’s accommodationism might have been due more to a fluffy, nostalgic, half remembered and not-very-bright view of religion alongside an initial desire to stay out of the argument and focus on science rather than a desire to bend over backwards. It’s clear that he took this into batshit insanity in later life, but my point is that I think he just didn’t think it through.
Shame on him, admittedly, but I’m sure you see what I’m saying: he was an accommodationist by our standards, but I suspect he was genuinely trying to defend the integrity of science rather than to make spurious arguments about how the teaching of creationism might be alright. I think he was a slightly different kind of beast to the slimey ones we encounter all the time today.
But you’re right, he was foolish with the NOMA business and he took it to a bewildering extreme in some of his writing. I’m with Dawkins in thinking that he couldn’t possibly have believed some of the stuff he wrote. I guess he just didn’t think it through.
Damnit, I’m rambling on because I feel like I’m making excuses for Gould, which is not what I intended. I’m just trying to say that the world has changed and it’s become a lot easier these days to see when people were being intellectually lazy.
Oh sure. I don’t disagree – I certainly don’t class Gould with the bullying school of accomodationists. I was basically just registering the fact that I did vehemently disagree with that book at the time. It was a kind of portent…
From my own reading of Armstrong I have formed a distinct impression that she is one of those enormously clever people who can synthesise a great deal of what she experiences and reads into a coherent view. The coherence of her view impresses her so much that she does not stop to question whether she is right — whether, for example, a preconceived agenda is not imposing its constraints on what she will absorb and how she will assimilate its elements. I am not surprised that she credits Dawkins with saying things that no one can discover him ever actually to have said. Her view is that Dawkins is likely to have said it, that his saying it is consistent with what she takes to be Dawkins’s attitude, and therefore he must have said it. This is why she writes about true faith.
Yeah, if I read it for the first time now, I’d be enraged. But at the time, nothing had previously prepared me personally to know what was wrong with it. And I was only a bairn. The environment is very different now because we have all sorts of people writing about why this approach is wrong, including me of all people.
My point, I suppose, is that there was perhaps a dubious excuse for being so wrong back then, bur there isn’t now.
Gould made a dreadful mistake in saying that religion, and not science, is in charge of morals and meaning. I guess he was trying to offer something to religion since he had taken away all the empirical stuff. Not that religionists took the slightest bit of notice of NOMA. It is still exclusively used as a tool of accomodationists and they only use it to try to shush the gnus.
Yes, he did. Religion isn’t in charge of morals and meaning. But neither is science. The ones in charge of morals and meaning are you and I. Science is useful, in the sense that we must use rational means to get at the truth. But that’s it for science. I hate Abstracts. Abstracts are why we have religion in the first place.
Gordon – oh I don’t think Armstrong is enormously clever. I really don’t – that’s not just snide. Her reputation for erudition is wildly exaggerated, and her enormous cleverness just isn’t much in evidence. She’s very fluent – but that’s a different thing.
I suppose Gould was figuring that if he was going to say they are two magisteria, then each had to have something. We know what science has; what does religion get to have?
He was way too hasty in answering that question.
It really is odd, because he can’t have been unaware of the problems with saying religion gets meaning and morality. [shakes head in confusion]
Ophelia, I wasn’t thinking of cleverness in the sense of real learning or even in bothering to pay attention. I was thinking of cleverness in the sense of being able to put impressions together in a way which creates a consistent whole, within the parameters of her chosen worldview. In that sense I think that she is brilliant. For the same reason, I think that her views are very convincing to many, and wholly poisonous — or corrupting, perhaps a better word. She can’t see outside her own brain — I mean, she can’t imagine that she could be in any way deficient, that her eyesight might be less than optimal. In that sense she’s dangerous.
Gordon – right – that’s what I meant by fluent.
But I think that kind of fluency is more like stupidity than cleverness – for the reasons you indicate. She’s a good fabulator, precisely because she doesn’t think critically. She’s an enthusiast and not a thinker.
Yes, of course she’s not a thinker. She could be a good thinker, if she tried, but she has other agendas which are much more important. No, she isn’t essentially stupid, except that she chooses to be so. She seems to have chosen a path, like “how to salve the wounds of the world”, and it’s a very touching adolescent way of looking, but she has simply never learnt that critical thinking is better than childish assumptions. She wants to solve the world’s problems by rewriting all the traditions of humanity. It’s totally idiotic, but she won’t see that as long as she sells a lot of books.
Nick the priss
Aside from what people have already said on you generalising based on one person’s example…
Is Royal Society Membership now some sort of innoculation against people not liking you? Are we simply not allowed to have a low opinion of any members of the NS – or their stances?
Must any potential leader of the “atheist movement” be such a fucking saint that he hardly breaths but to butter up to your list o “gnice guys”?
Another Bruce, just for the hell of it.
Want to be Karen Armstrong? Just insist the thing you are describing transcends classification or transcends any test of its veracity. Instant escape clause in any debate, a free pass for incoherence and vagueness. Lefty twits eat that junk up. She has distilled the formula of faith to its essence, diluted the language of religion so far that it has achieved a homeopathic, placebo potency well-suited to her patients. If you’re Wayne Dyer, add “quantum” every so often and broaden your net to include the pseudo-scientists.
Is there a more weasely word than “transcendent?”
The Boss (@ 35):
“Spiritual”. Well, it’s not more weasely, maybe only as weasely.