![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Several weeks ago I read a fascinating article in Discover Magazine (Sept. 05) about Sir Richard Dawkins, a British scientist and champion of Darwinism. Entitled Darwin’s Rottweiler, it focused as much on the man as on his science.
In the article, Dawkins is described as . . . a self-styled paladin of scientific rationality. An unabashed atheist and an avidly polemical public intellectual, he has employed a scorched-earth vocabulary to take on religion. . . . While he comes across as brilliant, he is also portrayed as arrogant and intolerant. He's one of that large group of people who view all those who disagree with them as stupid or intentionally ignorant.
The "scorched-earth vocabulary" and insulting over generalization of those who hold different opinions than he does, are excused in the article. They aren't serious shortcomings and no one should take offense at his highly insulting and aggressive debate style because he is "an intellectual". He's not really condescending and offensive, he's just perceived to be that way by those who lack his intelligence. He doesn’t mean anything by it, he's just so brilliant he can't help himself.
To which I say: Bullshit. I don't excuse stupid people when they are arrogant or intolerant, why should I excuse intelligent ones, those who by the very definition of the adjective "intelligent" should know better.
Now, despite the fact that it is obvious that I should never meet this man, the article is very interesting and well worth the read. Even more interesting than the man himself, is the tone that the article is written in. Now, granted, it is a feature piecs on one of the foremost Darwinian thinkers and, therefore, will present his views (if not himself) in a positive light. I still find it intriguing that writer establishes a completely black and white view of the world: You either side completely with Dawkins or you side completely against him. You can't just buy some of what he's selling. It's all or nothing.
It's put quite succinctly toward the end of the article when the writer asks: Do we want to live in a world where deeds, perceptions, and public policies are rooted in evidence or faith, sanctioned by fact or authority?
What strikes me about the question is the absolutism of it: It's either one or the other. There is no middle ground, no place for both to be true and no way for someone to be both intellectual and faith-full. It's the ultimately phrased "Us" or "Them" argument.
It is an intentional polarization, too. When describing Hawkins' current role as a public figure, the author writes: But if there is one topic for which he is the go-to guy in the world of intellectual combat, it is religion and especially the tentacles it sends into secular life—creationism, intelligent design, authority, superstition, and the method by which we determine what is true. It may be the ultimate culture war of our time, because it underlies fundamental and mutually exclusive visions of the path toward truth."
Wow. "Mutually exclusive" paths toward truth. And here I was thinking that religious fanatics had the corner on narrow-minded bigotry.
Is this really the way the world it turning? Is there no room for both science and faith? I couldn't live in a world where all I could believe is what could be proven, any more than I could live in a world where I would have to ignore proof in order to believe. Perhaps it's because I'm not intelligent enough or not faithful enough, but I don't think so. I've never been fond of being forced to live in a black and white world and I don't intend to start now.
I also find the phrase "the tentacles it [religion] sends into secular life" interesting because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what faith is. You see, I don't have a secular life. No, I don't live in a Church all the time, but my faith and what I believe is a fundamental part of me. Every decision I make, everything that I do is influenced by my beliefs. My religion isn't just something for Church, it's how I live my life. And before you all get "OMG, she's a fanatic!" on me, I will point out that science also influences everything I do. It's no more possible for me to ignore my faith than it is for me to ignore gravity.
More and more, I find that "Intellectualism" is becoming just another brand of intolerance. One that uses college degrees and polysyllabic words to brow-beat those who disagree into submission. In the end, they are just as fanatical and narrow-minded as the religious fanatics that they so despise.
And they don't even have the excuse of being uneducated to fall back on.
In the article, Dawkins is described as . . . a self-styled paladin of scientific rationality. An unabashed atheist and an avidly polemical public intellectual, he has employed a scorched-earth vocabulary to take on religion. . . . While he comes across as brilliant, he is also portrayed as arrogant and intolerant. He's one of that large group of people who view all those who disagree with them as stupid or intentionally ignorant.
The "scorched-earth vocabulary" and insulting over generalization of those who hold different opinions than he does, are excused in the article. They aren't serious shortcomings and no one should take offense at his highly insulting and aggressive debate style because he is "an intellectual". He's not really condescending and offensive, he's just perceived to be that way by those who lack his intelligence. He doesn’t mean anything by it, he's just so brilliant he can't help himself.
To which I say: Bullshit. I don't excuse stupid people when they are arrogant or intolerant, why should I excuse intelligent ones, those who by the very definition of the adjective "intelligent" should know better.
Now, despite the fact that it is obvious that I should never meet this man, the article is very interesting and well worth the read. Even more interesting than the man himself, is the tone that the article is written in. Now, granted, it is a feature piecs on one of the foremost Darwinian thinkers and, therefore, will present his views (if not himself) in a positive light. I still find it intriguing that writer establishes a completely black and white view of the world: You either side completely with Dawkins or you side completely against him. You can't just buy some of what he's selling. It's all or nothing.
It's put quite succinctly toward the end of the article when the writer asks: Do we want to live in a world where deeds, perceptions, and public policies are rooted in evidence or faith, sanctioned by fact or authority?
What strikes me about the question is the absolutism of it: It's either one or the other. There is no middle ground, no place for both to be true and no way for someone to be both intellectual and faith-full. It's the ultimately phrased "Us" or "Them" argument.
It is an intentional polarization, too. When describing Hawkins' current role as a public figure, the author writes: But if there is one topic for which he is the go-to guy in the world of intellectual combat, it is religion and especially the tentacles it sends into secular life—creationism, intelligent design, authority, superstition, and the method by which we determine what is true. It may be the ultimate culture war of our time, because it underlies fundamental and mutually exclusive visions of the path toward truth."
Wow. "Mutually exclusive" paths toward truth. And here I was thinking that religious fanatics had the corner on narrow-minded bigotry.
Is this really the way the world it turning? Is there no room for both science and faith? I couldn't live in a world where all I could believe is what could be proven, any more than I could live in a world where I would have to ignore proof in order to believe. Perhaps it's because I'm not intelligent enough or not faithful enough, but I don't think so. I've never been fond of being forced to live in a black and white world and I don't intend to start now.
I also find the phrase "the tentacles it [religion] sends into secular life" interesting because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what faith is. You see, I don't have a secular life. No, I don't live in a Church all the time, but my faith and what I believe is a fundamental part of me. Every decision I make, everything that I do is influenced by my beliefs. My religion isn't just something for Church, it's how I live my life. And before you all get "OMG, she's a fanatic!" on me, I will point out that science also influences everything I do. It's no more possible for me to ignore my faith than it is for me to ignore gravity.
More and more, I find that "Intellectualism" is becoming just another brand of intolerance. One that uses college degrees and polysyllabic words to brow-beat those who disagree into submission. In the end, they are just as fanatical and narrow-minded as the religious fanatics that they so despise.
And they don't even have the excuse of being uneducated to fall back on.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 04:36 pm (UTC)From:I just may need to quote you on that some day because it is so succinct, and yet so difficult for intellectuals to accept.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:04 am (UTC)From:I'm just impressed that I came up with something quotable at 12:30 in the morning. I'm going to have to remember it, too. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 05:00 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-11 02:52 am (UTC)From:Maybe, mankind is so wired into the "us v them" state of mind that everything has to be made into absolutes.
Heh. I'm sure Darwinism has a theory for it. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 05:01 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-11 02:43 am (UTC)From:It's nice to know that, even though the only thing I've written is weeks is this rant, it was a good rant. *grin*
Now if only I could focus on other things.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-12 02:02 pm (UTC)From:I personally would say this the US in particular is becoming more religious, not less. Which, as far you your personal life goes, is fine; doesn't bother me, isn't any of my business when/if it does.
But it does bother me when a tiny religious minority wants to ban evolution because they don't believe in it and therefore no one should learn about it.
It does bother me when people decide (see gay marriage) that gay marriage should be banned because their religion is against it, even if the gay people are not religious. (If your religion decides not to acknowledge gay marriage, that's fine by me [well, sort of. I mean it bothers me, but I have no business poking my nose in your religion's business.]; it's your religion, not mine.)