The Campaign Is Too Depressing to Blog I: Dawkins
Allan’s great post on Dawkins’s apparent descent into self-parody reminded me about this South Park cartoon that does a better job in 76 seconds than I ever have in showing how Dawkins’s views imply nihilism.
(h/t Andrew Sullivan)
Sheesh Jim, Dawkins is the memetic equivalent of Falwell and Dobson anymore.
A fundamentalist.
Three things.
1. Dawkins believes that indoctrinating children into religious belief is child abuse. Not just christian children, but children of any religion, in Root of All Evil, his documentery, he spends at least as much time criticizing orthodox Judaism.
2. Dawkins is wrong about fantasy, myth, legend and religion. Those are all part of us, part of humanity, and can’t be excised or cut out.
3. Reading is a great good. Harry Potter changed hundreds of thousands of non-readers into readers.
How could that ever be a bad thing?
— matoko_chan · Oct 30, 03:16 PM · #
Wait, that clip is awesome, but how exactly does it show his views imply nihilism?
— Daniel · Oct 30, 03:38 PM · #
What’s really funny is how anyone can look at South Park’s obvious satire on fundamentalist religion’s reaction to the facts of evolution and see it as satire of Dawkins. That’s astonishing. Nothing Dawkins says in the clip betrays any sense of nihilism at all. It’s the maniac teacher, who interprets Dawkins words as nihilism because he can’t begin to comprehend a view other than his own.
I agree that Dawkins attack of fantasy literature is silly, but the misinterpretation of the South Park clip says much more about the mindset of the viewer and the human inclination towards projection than anything else.
If you think I’m wrong, watch the video again. Who’s portrayed as dignified? Who’s portrayed as maniacal? The individual who supposedly believes “nothing” remains staid and calm; it’s the one who would like for his moral universe to be painted into 2 shades, black and white, who instantly devolves into chaotic animalism.
— Robert S. · Oct 30, 04:02 PM · #
Robert S:
Why should the teacher care about being (what you call) dignified?
— Jim Manzi · Oct 30, 04:52 PM · #
Context, Robert: you’ve obviously never seen the whole episode (a two-parter, actually). Most of it takes place in a future where atheism reigns but has split into three factions who are at war because of different answers to “The Question.” This is a result of the success of Dawkins’ project, which includes the maxim that “Logic and reason aren’t enough: You also have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.”
You’re right that that clip makes Dawkins look good, but that’s the very beginning of the first episode. Over the remaining 55 minutes, the show pretty clearly opines that Dawkins’ atheism is just as close-minded and obnoxious as any religious group.
— Rover · Oct 30, 05:08 PM · #
Fair enough, Rover, but I think my point about this clip doing nothing to prove that Dawkins is a nihilist (or that atheim/agnosticism has to lead to nihilism) still stands. And I agree, whole-heartedly – fundamentalism in any quarter is never productive – most likely harmful.
— Robert S. · Oct 30, 05:24 PM · #
Why should the teacher care about being (what you call) dignified?
Enlightened self-interest. The teacher lives in this world and won’t be able to get all the things he wants if he is fired, stigmatized, beaten by a mob, etc.
In other words, even if you take the truth of nihilism as a given, costs still accrue to the social outcast, to the public taboo-breaker and bad-actor. In primitive cultures, the cost is death. In our culture, the cost is usually your job and your friends, sometimes jail, and rarely death.
Call it the moral anthropic principle. It may be a fiat morality, but this is where you’ve been thrown. Acting moral is like keeping your boat straight on the rapids.
— JA · Oct 30, 05:32 PM · #
Jim, your question to me is pretty astonishing and only serves to underline and emphatically highlight the point I made about projection.
As has been the case for eons, the teacher (or most people) would modulate his behavior in order to conform to societal expectations, to fit in, to be an agreeable sort who gets along with his fellow citizens. Their are many motivations, which have evolved (heh) over time for us to act with civility in our respective cultures, and as time goes on, our customs, rules, laws, etc only continue to evolve. We’re only recently, for example, treating our gay fellow citizens with the respect they deserve. For these moral habits to advance, for a delicate sense of decorum to evolve, one needs only to interact with other human beings. God’s intervention isn’t needed at all.
In the same manner, we didn’t need God to design The 10 Great Laws for Driving in Traffic for us. We came up with these on our own, as we realized that driving will nilly wherever we wanted to was a quick way to getting ourselves killed.
This doesn’t disprove the idea of a god. It just establishes that we certainly don’t need God to be moral or to establish intricate moral networks or standards of decorum.
Cheers.
— Robert S. · Oct 30, 05:33 PM · #
Also, what JA said. ;) Precisely.
— Robert S. · Oct 30, 05:34 PM · #
One more thing. Chimpanzees are not nihilists either; they have highly complex social behaviors that are genetically favored and group enforced. This chimp-morality helps keep them together to keep them alive.
— JA · Oct 30, 05:40 PM · #
Robert S:
So, if I could appear to be modulating my behavior and so forth, but in fact to quote SP “being a dick” such that I could capture all the benefits accruing to such behavior, while actually killing several of the kids in the class each night for sport, why should I not do that? (Further, assuming that I do not have internal programming that has hard-wired me to be unhappy if I do such thing. Given that evolution is a statistical process, some suhc indivudals are certain to be produced per generation.)
JA:
We’ve already had this debate, so no fair…LOL.
— Jim Manzi · Oct 30, 06:03 PM · #
Jim, I guess it’s all this hope and change that’s in the air, makes me try again. :)
I wonder, though. Do you acknowledge that, sooner or later, your argument must end with the thudding “Because it’s just wrong“? And are you fine with the Ouroboros nature of such reasoning?
— JA · Oct 30, 06:12 PM · #
“So, if I could appear to be modulating my behavior and so forth, but in fact to quote SP “being a dick” such that I could capture all the benefits accruing to such behavior, while actually killing several of the kids in the class each night for sport, why should I not do that?”
But people do exactly that, Jim. And in your scenario they’d get caught pretty quickly and thrown in jail. In fact, minus the violence, someone like Donald Trump is the perfect example of what you’re talking about. Hopefully, in the future, our sense of decorum will become a little more sophisticated (or maybe I mean to my taste!) and people won’t admire someone like Trump as much.
There’s much more that could be said, of course, but I think JA and I lay it out pretty clearly. The rest should be discussed over beers some day.
Cheers.
— Robert S. · Oct 30, 06:17 PM · #
Quickly, another point: If God is the arbiter of right and wrong, what if he decided murder we OK?
IF you say he wouldn’t do that, because murder isn’t right, how do you know it’s not right? Apparently, God didn’t have to tell you.
— Robert S. · Oct 30, 06:21 PM · #
JA:
Yes, I’ve written a lot about how that is the only way out (as far as I can see) of this “yeah, so what?” questioning. For example, here
Robert S:
So, if I’m sufficiently competent (as per my thought-experiment) why should I not do it?
I don’t think I’ve ever turned down a beer in my life, so I’m cool with that as a resolution.
— Jim Manzi · Oct 30, 06:27 PM · #
Jim, that’s certainly one way out. A constellation of declarative sentences, relying solely on the snapshot judgments of instinct. Might even be a “best mode”, given the layered blindnesses of the “sophisticated approach” (which in your link you rightly take to task).
Keith Stanovich makes a good point in his book Robot’s Rebellion, one that is relevant here. Because the moral instinct arose to ultimately serve the gene, there is every reason to believe that, first of all, our judging mechanism is error-prone, and secondly, that it does not always have my best interests in mind. Genetic interest and vehicle interest are not coextensive; as one who is very much vehicle-centric, a bit of self-scrutiny goes a long way. Also, add in a third perspective, “social interest” — society being necessary for our survival — and you quickly reach the conclusion that “just-so” moral arguments might actually be counterproductive to the long-term health of two out of the three parties.
Oh, and first round’s on me.
— JA · Oct 30, 07:58 PM · #
The campaign may be too depressing to blog, but not to observe. We saw Hank Williams, Jr., Arnold Schwartzenegger, and McCain’s family at the Columbus rally late yesterday afternoon. There’s beauty in loyalty among patriots nearing the end of a “long defeat,” whether you agree with them or not.
It’s great to be human.
YOu have to have a sense of humor at a last-ditch rally that starts with awards to the best Joe the Plumber, John McCain, Arnold Schwartzenegger, and Sarah Palin look-alikes.
Arnold had just spoken to his wife back home, who was planning to hand out Halloween treats, in “another liberal giveaway.” :-) * * * * *
I cried when Obama came out on the stage at his rally back in March. I cried when McCain came out yesterday evening. These men are so small. The task is so large.
— Julana · Nov 1, 03:06 PM · #