Posted by
Fructedor
I first read Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' a few years ago, after having seen the impressive and probably expensive display in W.H. Smth's in Paris – it was a bigger display than that deployed for most high-selling trash novels. Hard sell. I bought the book because I'm interested in ideas and because I'd seen videos of Dawkins teaching evolution to students of a university in London – this would have been the early '90's. He came across as an engaging speaker with a gift for communication, which made his exposé more entertaining and readily accessible. However, I remember being confused by the sudden swerve he made in one of these classes – he asked his audience to predict the toss of a coin – heads or tails – unsurprisingly, the result was about 50/50. His conclusion was that it was impossible to predict anything, and therefore any other process than scientific logic was untenable. At the time I couldn't understand what place he thought that opinion had in a class on evolutionary biology.
His book, as I read it, is a diatribe against organised religion, the inconsistencies in orthodox dogma, and the possibility of there being any other reality than what we term 3D reality. People who express any other view than his are deluded, stupid and probably dangerous. To shore up this idea, he points to the more obvious examples of religious fundamentalism – the Inquisition, anti-Jewish pogroms, Muslim extremism and so on. The fact that millions of people are hoodwinked by various forms of religious faith, he states, is an indication of the dangerous nature of any idea that ventures beyond the boundaries of 'scientific' thought.
However, he entirely overlooks the fact that exactly the same arguments can be used to disqualify the validity of any political system. People who are convinced that they are citizens of the 'free (Western) world' have few problems with the idea of annihilating millions of other human beings in order to 'protect' or promote 'democracy' and 'freedom'.
I participated for a while on Dawkins' forum – a self-styled 'free-thinking oasis' (since dismantled, the last time I looked) – and encountered nothing more than a form of ideological conformism quite as Cyclopian as those disseminated by the worst religious fanatics. These are people who raise nit-picking to the level of an art form, endlessly arguing about definitions and worst of all, sneering viciously at those they consider inferior by virtue of their disagreement with the party line.
As a side note to this, I would add that there are regrettably many example of this kind of 'superiority complex' displayed even on sites such as Avalon – overbearing references to the 'sheeple', for example, which in the end serve as little more than advertisements for the author's supposed enlightenment and membership of some sort of special club. It's my opinion that this sort of thinking is entirely counter-productive. Although it is understandable that after long research into the pros and cons of certain fundamental world events, one may feel frustration when faced with people to whom these ideas are clearly inconceivable, it's enough to look at one's own evolution to at least empathize with what appears to be their ignorance. We all have different paths, and they're all valid. No good will come of demonstrating the sort of elitist attitude that isolates others, rather than making the effort to find a common language which at least leave the options for discussion open. The Dawkins' adepts I've met seem to be incapable of such emapthy. Such a mentality seems inefficient, but that's just my opinion.
Over the last few years, there has been a recrudescence of Dawkins bandwagoneering visible in many facets of the entertainment business – especially with comedians, actors, TV personalities and the like. An example of this could be British entertainer Stephen Fry's toss-off hatchet job on the crop circle phenomenon, as broadcast in his show QI – in other respects a very funny and original show by the way – he hired a team of crop circle architects to fabricate a circle of the QI logo, then went on to conclude that all crop circles were fake and people who thought otherwise were deluded idiots. Of course, he entirely overlooked the fact that certain crop circles are so elaborate, huge and perfectly executed that it is almost impossible to imagine that they were created in the dark of night by a bunch of jokers stamping on planks. The truth is we have no satisfactory explanation for the crop circle phenomenon, and any truthful commentary on it would have to admit it.
It's this sort of peer pressure opinioneering that serves to hold the door shut on any line of enquiry different from the party line, an unthinking acceptance that there is no other reality than 3D – it seems to me that Dawkins' well-sponsored celebrity serves the same purpose. Nothing is real other than what can be demonstrated by the five senses. This is clearly nonsense, since even science itself now openly admits that many natural phenomena entirely escape our five-sense understanding or even perception. Perhaps the man himself actually genuinely holds these opinions, in which he's not a very efficient scientist, or else, like Madonna or Eminem, he's spotted the fact that once you get your hooks into an audience, you can keep reeling them in for years.
Finally, a quote from the man himself.
« It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). »
This is an example of exactly the sort of cherry-picking that Dawkins rails against in his long and narcissistic harangues against religious hypocrisy. The event he refers to was reported in some detail by Jung himself in his book 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections' – he and Freud were arguing about the existence of the 'supernatural' – suddenly there was a loud noise from the bookshelf, and in their moment of astonishment, and to his own surprise, Jung declared that there would be another noise. Jung himself states that he doesn't know why he said that, but his declaration was immediately followed by a second noise. He and Freud then entirely dismantled the bookshelf in an attempt to discover the origin of these phenomena – without success. I don't know whether Freud himself reported this incident, but if not, why not ?
Apologies for the length of this post, and best wishes to all.
Fructedor
