Richard Dawkins responds to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali's confession of faith

[Zerothruster]

Here is a brief but to the point Open Letter from Richard Dawkins to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali regarding her ‘conversion’, such as it is. I learned of it watching a podcast by Alex O’Connor about Ayaan’s religious status, where he wonders “Is [her] Religion Even About Truth?” There are two things Dawkins writes regarding intelligence and its relation to belief that I think are a bit condescending and incorrect. Many very intelligent people are faithful believers. Though there is a moderate correlation between religious skepticism and intelligence, there’s also a correlation between education level and intelligence, so the factor supporting religious skepticism could have more to do with education level than native intelligence.

“Someone of your intelligence does not believe you have an immortal soul, which will survive the decay of your brain.”

“Intelligent people don’t believe something because it comforts them.”

Open letter from Richard Dawkins to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali (substack.com)

Is Religion Even About Truth? - YouTube

[Liz]

Interesting. She does admit in the video that she doesn’t believe literally in the Bible, but agrees with the “Judeo-Christian tradition”. This makes more sense for her as an atheist, but then should she have really titled her essay, “Why I am now a Christian”?
I guess that just depends on who you ask. A literalist believer would disagree, but a Unitarian might not.
So she might think Dawkins is just being picky, but he may have a point that it’s important to keep the distinction clear between beliefs and facts.

[jbecker]

Thanks for these links, Zerothruster.

The reply by Richard Dawkins is well worth reading, even if one doesn’t agree with everything he says. His main point is that Christians believe what is not true, and as Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not one to believe what is not true, she cannot surely be a believing Christian.

She believes in what she supposes Christian values to be. The irritating thing about that is, people who say it never itemize what those “values” are. A sort of vague “being nice to people” is implied. Well, the documents of the “New Testament” provide some support for that idea, sentimental rather than rational. (I can give examples and arguments if they are wanted.) But the terrible history of Christianity makes a complete mockery of it.

The arguments of the man in the video are reasonable. But Christians don’t listen to arguments against Christianity. Or if they listen to them, they don’t think about them. Or if they think about them, they don’t like them. If they liked them, and were logical, they would stop being Christians. But then, if they were logical, would they have chosen to be Christians?

[Liz]

You’re right - in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are either nominal, and just don’t think about it either way, or they become Christians for emotional, rather than logical, reasons.
The latter therefore reject rational arguments against belief in the supernatural in an emotional reaction which overrides their ability or desire to reason.
This also leads them to inject references to the supernatural in their own arguments against Marxist (or other) ideas, which destroys the credibility of what could otherwise be sound arguments.

[Zerothruster]

In my view, anyone claiming to be a Christian has to believe in the basics of what I call the Christian Epic. The fall of Mankind through Disobedience in the Garden of Eden, leading to God’s condemnation and curse of Original Sin visited down through all Generations, requiring the Sacrifice of God’s only Son on the Cross as a possible means of Redemption, but only if one believes in the Reality of that Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, Original or otherwise. Failing that, you’re not really a Christian, just someone claiming to be a Christian in order to be thought a ‘good person’, or trying to avoid the identity of an atheist or agnostic, and so forth.

[jbecker]

“The Christian Epic.” A splendid name for the story which you sum up perfectly.

The Christian Epic by Saul of Tarsus (aka St. Paul). The world’s biggest best-selling novel.

[Cogito]

Dawkins is a condescending sonofabitch, but he is fundamentally correct.

[Liz]

Yes, he’s one of those liberals like Bill Maher, who apparently now recognizes “wokeness” as a bad thing, but not too long ago (and probably still) blabs about “consciousness raising”, etc…

[Cogito]

Yes, he’s a most unpleasant man, but his arguments in the letter are good.

[Cogito]

Jillian, would you be kind enough to enlarge on your statement that you do not agree with everything he says? What, precisely, do you not agree with?

[jbecker]

Thanks for asking me that, Cogito.

It’s a very good letter. But there are two (unqualified) statements in it that I don’t “buy”.

The emphasized words here: "I might agree with you (I actually do) that Putinism, Islamism, and postmodernish wokery pokery are three great enemies of decent civilisation. I might agree with you that Christianity, if only as a lesser of evils, is a powerful weapon against them."

Christianity is manifestly not a powerful weapon against any of them.

Ågainst Islamism (or Islam)? No. One irrational belief can never be a powerful intellectual weapon against any other irrational belief; and as movements rather than theological arguments, Islam is winning hugely.

Against Putinism? (Not sure what that is, but let’s say against Putin’s tyranny and geopolitical aggression.) Obviously not. What churches, or what Christian clerics, or what hosts of Christian protestors are staying Putin’s hand in Ukraine?

Against “wokeness” (or “postmodernish wokery pokery”)? Also obviously not. Yes, some Protestants and some Catholics have taken a stand against “woke” bullying. But they’re not winning much, are they? Only, maybe, a small skirmish here or there.

The other statement I cannot nod at is this:

“… my books have expounded my lifelong quest to understand the meaning and purpose of all life.”

I have read, with interest and fascination, a number of his books. I have learnt much from them, chiefly of course about evolution - which is what they are chiefly about. But in none of them have I found - and wouldn’t expect to find in any book of his or any real scientist’s - a trace of “a quest to understand the meaning and purpose of all life”.

There cannot be a “meaning of life”, or a “purpose of life”. Whose purpose? What possible “meaning”?

[Liz]

You’re right that “one irrational belief can never be a powerful intellectual weapon against any other irrational belief.”
Maybe what he’s more referring to is the “Judeo-Christian tradition” she mentions, which, along with the irrational parts, also encompasses moral principles such as the Golden Rule, basic laws, etc. (not unique to Christianity but contained in it) that form part of the foundation of Western civilization.
In that sense it is at least a standard to uphold against the barbarism of Islam and “wokery”, even if it isn’t winning much ground.
As far as purpose or meaning in life, I think he gets close to the mark in mentioning love. It’s the human version of “what makes the world go round” for all species, which is to reproduce themselves.
In humanity that translates, ideally, into a family.

[Cogito]

Thank you, Jillian. I, too, questioned his neologism of"Putinism". I also view as intellectual cowards, those who use the cover of Islamism rather than Islam per se.
Your thoughts on the impotence of Christianity in defeating wokism and Islam is very true indeed.

[jbecker]

If he said what you have said, Liz, I would have no quarrel with him.

[jbecker]

What Voltaire said about Christianity:

Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.

Christian: A good-natured, simple fellow; a true lamb of the fold, who, in the innocence of his heart, persuades himself that he firmly believes unbelievable things that his priests have told him to believe, especially those he cannot even imagine. Consequently, he is convinced that three x’s make fifteen, that God was made man, that he was hanged and rose to life again, that priests cannot lie, and that all who do not believe in priests will be damned without remission.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.

Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.

Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed.

More here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160531141914/http://www.positiveatheism.org:80/hist/quotes/voltaire.htm

[Liz]

What a great quote! Christianity in those days did deserve that criticism, but now I think Islam takes its place as “the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world”, under the influence of which Muslims “commit atrocities”. And the key to that is, I think, the fanaticism he talks about. Christianity was tempered enough by reason, thanks to the Enlightenment, to outgrow most of its fanaticism, but Islam never did.

[Cogito]

I’m re-thinking my assessment of the impotence of Christianity in warring against Islam. As I said in an earlier post, it was Christian men who successfully defeated the Islamic hordes at Tours, Lepanto, and Vienna.
If not for these victories, the West may have not survived. For good measure, these Christian men dismantled the centuries old Ottoman Empire.
I, of course, agree wholeheartedly with the always sparkling Voltaire. Christianity is intellectually farcical, but risible or not, Christian men have died in saving our civilization. I think also of the row after row of Christian graves in France. These men defeated Hitler and then the Soviet Empire.
Just for the record.

[Liz]

Yes, these men are heroes, whether their beliefs were accurate or not. Feminists would do well to remember that without men, civilization wouldn’t have been built, preserved or successfully defended against those who would, even now, enslave them.

[Cogito]

Yes, their beliefs may be logically insupportable, but their actions should never be forgotten.

[Zerothruster]

Wasn’t there an article recently about how Christians defended the West against the Muslim invaders? I thought I saw something like that a few weeks ago. But while it’s true that the invaders were repelled by Christians, you have to wonder how things would have gone if the Empire had not become decadent, weak and converted to Christianity. The Empire became officially Christian around 325, but the barbarian migrations or invasions of Goths and Vandals etc. started later, around 375.