Ch.1, §1: ‘Deserved Respect’ (pp.31–41), continued
Dawkins quotes a selection of religious responses to Einstein’s declaration that he did not believe in a personal God. I’ve already mentioned one of them (the claim that Einstein did not know what he was talking about), but Dawkins provides many others.
There is an ‘American Roman Catholic lawyer’, who says that Einstein’s statements will make Hitler’s decision to ‘expel’ Jews from Germany seem understandable to many (p.37). This is indeed an utterly repulsive statement; I think most people (religious or not) would find it so.
Then there is a ‘New York rabbi’ who said,
Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism (p.38).
Dawkins comments:
‘But’? ‘But‘? Why not ‘and’?
The easy response is, of course, to read the Rabbi’s statement as meaning, ‘Like most people, I value Einstein’s scientific work – but I have problems with his religious views.’ I’m not quite sure what the fuss is about that ‘but’. I can only think that Dawkins’ incredulity arises either (a) because he thinks Einstein’s religious views flowed directly from his scientific views, so that it is nonsense to claim to value his science whilst denying its obvious implications, or (b) because he thinks that the habits of thought one would need to be able to recognise the greatness of Einstein’s scientific work are precisely the habits of thought eschewed by religious people.
A more interesting quotation, though, is the one from the ‘president of a historical society in New Jersey’. It is interesting for two reasons: Dawkins’ comment, and the content of the quotation given. Dawkins says that the letter ‘damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind’ and that ‘Every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice’. I can’t help picturing at this point some Basil-Rathbone-as-Sherlock-Holmes figure, saying ‘Ah yes, Watson – but there you see the terrible weakness of the criminal mind; he cannot resist returning to the scene of his evil deeds!’ The trouble is, I think Dawkins really does believe that all religious people are at best weak-minded, and at worst intellectually dishonest. Oh well.
The content of the letter is also, as Dawkins says, worth a look, but I want to come back to it a little later, when I tackle the relationship between ‘ordinary believers’ and theology. I’ll try to remember to do so.
The last letter quoted, from ‘the Founder of the Calvary Tabernacle Association in Oklahoma’ is, as Dawkins promises, shocking. The author tells Einstein to go back where he came from, with his unAmerican views (pp.37-8). And its offensiveness is made up of all sorts of different elements: the writer evidently has a mind in which America, Christianity, creationism, and a pro-Israel, pro-religious-Judaism stance stand against Europe, atheism, evolution, and the temerity that some Jews have in not filling the role that Christians want them to fill. This is a poisonous mindset: the back-handed anti-Semitism, the mythologising of America as a (thoroughly) Christian nation, the assumption that Christianity and creationism go hand-in-glove. Ugh.
Of course, none of this gets us very far. Dawkins wants me to see evidence of the moral and intellectual weakness that are essential to the ‘religious mind’. I see only examples of bad religion. The contest between these two views will evidently not be won or lost here: Dawkins has as yet offered no argument as to why I should see these examples as getting to the heart of religion. Let’s move on.
> Dawkins wants me to see evidence of the moral and intellectual weakness …
Dawkins wants us to see that “The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them” (paragraph directly following the ‘Calvary Tabernacle Association’ quote)
Yes, Dawkins does want to convey the message you mention, and that is the primary point of the section of the chapter that we’re looking at. But his account does much more than that, and I assume he’s a skilled enough writer for this to be deliberate. The rhetoric is an important part of the overall effect, and he doesn’t write phrases like ‘the weakness of the religious mind’ by accident.
In any case, as I have said, I think he’s wrong about Einstein: not because Einstein believed in a supernaturalist God, but because he seems to have operated in a territory which is neither purely naturalist not purely supernaturalist, a territory that is also occupied by many explicitly religious, God-believing people.
or (c) because he thinks the rabbi is suggesting it doesn’t matter that he’s “a great scientist” only that Einstein’s “religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism” or (d) …
> he doesn’t write phrases like ‘the weakness of the religious mind’ by accident
Agreed – but given there’s so much annoying niggling should we suppose that “a skilled enough writer” is using those phrases to pull the already sympathetic target reader closer, or should we suppose …
Einstein was gracious enough to answer questions addressed to him by a wide variety of people – schoolchildren, soldiers, rabbis – and he seemed sensible of the language he should use for each audience.
Now maybe you can try that – what do you mean by a territory which is neither purely naturalist not purely supernaturalist?
(If not purely naturalist then isn’t the territory supernaturalist even if it is not purely supernaturalist?)
Your (c) doesn’t make sense of what Dawkins actually wrote. In any case, the whole text is peppered with insulting comments about the intelligence and intellectual integrity of religious believers. I therefore conclude that Dawkins has a low view of the intelligence and intellectual integrity of religious believers. And I further conclude that he is happy to share that view with his readers. Which bit of this is annoying you? I don’t quite see your problem.
As for ‘supernaturalist’ v. ‘naturalist’. In the post on ‘The Heart of the Matter’ (http://mikehigton.org.uk/?p=102) and the post on naturalism (http://mikehigton.org.uk/?p=82) and the post on ‘Non-supernaturalist theology’ (http://mikehigton.org.uk/?p=79) and others, I have tried to set out what I take to be Dawkins’ description of supernaturalist belief, and why I don’t think it applies to my kind of belief. (If there are bits of that you don’t understand, I’ll be happy to try and clarify it.) Of course, I also don’t think that his description of ‘naturalism’ captures what I believe either. So I’m neither a supernaturalist nor a naturalist by his definition.
Remember, I’m not just saying that some religious belief isn’t supernaturalist. I’m saying that the supernaturalist/naturalist distinction is not a very helpful one.
> the whole text is peppered with insulting comments … Which bit of this is annoying you? I don’t quite see your problem.
Can’t I be annoyed by the insulting comments in the text?
> the supernaturalist/naturalist distinction is not a very helpful one
Could it be a helpful distinction for whatever purpose Dawkins has in mind, rather than for the purposes you have in mind?
I think the distinction involves a misrepresentation of claims about God. That is, if I have understood what Dawkins means by ‘supernaturalist’ and by ‘naturalist’ then it seems to me that there are a lot of forms of belief in God (including some quite mainstream ones) which are neither, and which one has to distort to fit into either camp.