Pages

Monday, April 28, 2008

Snookered for Jesus

Richard Dawkins is in a really bad mood. I’ve been reading his “Lying for Jesus,” as well as his ‘Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein’s lying propaganda.”

Dawkins’ problem is that he published a best selling slam against Christianity. Now, however, his bestseller may be eclipsed by a blockbuster documentary slamming the evolutionary establishment. In a competition between a book and a movie, the movie usually wins. Such is the pop cultural survival of the fittest.

Dawkins’ two reaction pieces are unintentionally revealing and entertaining. To begin with, there’s the puzzling title.

Who, exactly, is lying for Jesus? One of Dawkins’ villains is Mark Mathis. Is Mathis lying for Jesus?

Why would Mathis be lying for Jesus? Is Mathis a Christian? Is Expelled a movie about Jesus?

Another one of Dawkins’ villains is Ben Stein. Is Stein lying for Jesus? Unless I’m mistaken, Stein is a Jew, not a Christian. He’d have no more reason to lie for Jesus than Woody Allen.

Does Dawkins know what he’s talking about? Sorry—that’s a redundant question.

Dawkins says he was “conned” into taking part in the project. Indeed, “Mathis tricked a number of scientists, including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film.”

For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. Why is Dawkins so offended?

In the God Delusion, he admits that “It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones” (232).

Since he repudiates moral absolutes, why does he think that Stein or Mathis did anything wrong, even assuming that they secured his interview under false pretenses?

Moreover, what does it say about Dawkins’ intellectual security, or lack thereof, if he would only submit to an interview on condition that the questioner is in the tank for Dawkins? Can Dawkins only hawk his wares to a sympathetic audience?

He is also offended that Mathis banned Myers from attending a prescreening of the film. But, in terms of evolutionary ethics, what moral imperative did Mathis violate?

Dawkins has said that “we are hosts for DNA parasites which are our genes.”

So, when we translate Dawkins’ indignant allegation into cool, scientific terms, what apparently happened is that one parasitic host (Mathis) was guilty of ousting another parasitic host (Myers) from a prescreening.

Where’s the evolutionary manual on social etiquette that governs social transactions between one parasitic host and another?

Dawkins even says that “Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues” have done “a wicked, evil thing.”

Can a parasitic host be “wicked”? Does this wickedness attach itself to the host proper, or to the wicked genes which commandeered the hapless host—like sneaky aliens in Men in Black?

Dawkins says the film is “dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed and utterly devoid of any style, wit or subtlety.”

Well, I suppose that’s always a risk when you interview a guy like Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins says “The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really.”

That’s a funny charge coming from a man who squeals about how he was duped by a Hollywood humorist.

“The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants.”

Dawkins only succeeds in making himself look stupid when he ventures such an ignorant and easily correctible statement about Ben Stein’s résumé.

Dawkins is also offended by the way the film draws a connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism:

“As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian).”

And again:

“I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave.”

That’s a very ironic disclaimer. Here’s a man who prides himself on being a brave, unyielding rationalist; a man who nobly follows the facts wherever they lead, heedless of the consequences—all delivered in his stiff upper lip accent:

“There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true.”

“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

“If it's true that it causes people to feel despair, that's tough. It's still the truth. The universe doesn't owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn't owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If it's true, it's true, and you'd better live with it.”

But as soon as someone draws a logical or historical connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism, he chickens out. Like all unbelievers, Dawkins is living a lie. His official creed commits him to moral nihilism, but he constantly reverts to a moralistic posture which is at odds with his grim worldview. He stares into the abyss, blinks once or twice, and then runs weeping and screaming back to his sandbox.

He accuses the Social Darwinist of committing the naturalistic fallacy. But that’s the problem. Since an unbeliever can’t infer “ought” from “is,” naturalistic evolution uproots the foundations of all morality. There is no imperative for socialized welfare or healthcare.

“Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools.”

Correct. However, Dawkins is in no position to take umbrage at guilt-by-association tactics. That’s his stock-and-trade. He constantly attacks the Christian faith by exhuming the usual suspects, viz. the Inquisition, the Crusades, &c. If he really believes that atrocities committed in the name of Christianity undermine Christianity, then atrocities committed in the name of evolution undermine evolution.

“Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism.”

But that misses the point. The question at issue is not whether they condemn it, but whether they are entitled to condemn it.

Because Ben Stein is a Jew, he naturally takes a pretty personal interest in the ethical implications or applications of Darwinism—vis-à-vis the Final Solution. Why wouldn’t he? Why shouldn’t he?

20 comments:

  1. I've heard some atheists respond to these types of charges by asserting that not every atheist is an eliminative materialist. But I think it makes an interesting reductio ad absurdum, does it not? The question might not be "are you an eliminative materialist?", but "why aren't you an eliminative materialist? Isn't that the most logical outcome of a purely empirical worldview?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In a competition between a book and a movie, the movie usually wins. Such is the pop cultural survival of the fittest."

    Brilliant and witty -- the whole thing -- very good presuppositional apologetics.

    I enjoyed that very much. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve writes:

    "Dawkins has said that “we are hosts for DNA parasites which are our genes.”

    So, when we translate Dawkins’ indignant allegation into cool, scientific terms, what apparently happened is that one parasitic host (Mathis) was guilty of ousting another parasitic host (Myers) from a prescreening.

    Where’s the evolutionary manual on social etiquette that governs social transactions between one parasitic host and another?"

    This is hilarious. And your entire post is very funny and spot-on!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi, guys ... and sorry for leaving here a comment regarding some of our previous discussions (about Orth. Catechisms [when we spoke about Canon]) instead of one about this very post ...

    youtube.com/watch?v=OZN99d60Bdg

    My point was/is: don't believe a Catechism if what's described in it does not fit well with the reality that it purportedly attempts to describe (in this case, that of the internal life of the Church); especially in the cases in which it's clearly adopting "en-gros and en-detail" views which are not native to the traditional Orth. soil, but rather are colored by and/or artificially imported from foreign cultures with a different set of paradigms and world-views.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dawkins: “Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism.”

    Hays "But that misses the point. The question at issue is not whether they condemn it, but whether they are entitled to condemn it."

    A nice, swift, well-deserved kick-in-the-pants to Dawkins and other neo-Darwinian evolutionists. They have no objective, absolute moral standard and foundation by which to condemn the outworkings of Hitler's social darwinism or Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood eugenics (which explicitly targeted the African-American community).

    Excellent post Steve. Keep up the good passionate ministry of glorifying God with all of our minds, all of our hearts, all our souls, and all our strength.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve (and anyone else),

    I remember that sometimes you post links to articles by Frame or Poythress or Plantinga... I'm wondering about the ethical justification of coming to Dick Dawk or some other false teacher/apostate with a false cover (like the Expelled guys did) to get information, an interview that exposes some of the evil in the false teacher's position, etc. Anythg you've written or can think of that would help me think this thru, the morality of Christians deceiving evil men (though of course the Expelled guys aren't necessarily Christians; this is hypothetical)?

    Grace and peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  7. I mean besides this one, which is already helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rhology,

    One instance might be when a Christian FBI agent goes undercover in a mob organization. He spends years with them, gets close, earns their trust, all the while he's been taping the don and various capos admissions of murder, or, say, finds out when a big heroin shipment is coming in, etc.

    More generally, if lying is not an *absolute* moral wrong (though it is *obejctively* wrong), then this would give us more to work with. Lying may be a means toward a second order good, say, human flourishing. If there's a circumstance where human flourishing might be hindered, then it might be permissible to lie; and, since it isn't *absolutely* wrong, there wouldn't be an immoral act committed. For instance, lying to the Nazi at your door abiut whether you're hiding Jews.

    That's a rough sketch.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah that makes sense, Paul, thanks.

    Makes me wonder if getting the (figuratively) incriminating confessions by DickDawk, PZM, and Dennett and others in Expelled is a worthy-enough 2nd-order good to justify the means...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christians deceiving evil men
    LOL :-) Last Friday was Great and Holy Friday, in which Christ, the New Adam, deceived through the wood of the Cross the deceiver of old, who deceived our forefathers Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden through the fruit of the Tree. (Apropos Jesus, the episode with Joshua also comes to mind). :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rhology said:
    ---
    I'm wondering about the ethical justification of coming to Dick Dawk or some other false teacher/apostate with a false cover (like the Expelled guys did) to get information, an interview that exposes some of the evil in the false teacher's position, etc.
    ---

    By the way, I don't think the Expelled guys did that. I know Dawk is claiming he was tricked, but consider the source. He came off looking like a complete buffoon so now he has to do damage control.

    But seriously consider that argument. Dawkins is saying that he was tricked. Tricked into what, being honest about Darwinism? Is he saying that he'd only have said the things he said for a pro-Darwinistic video, but not for an anti-Darwinistic video, as if who makes the video changes reality? Frankly, if Darwinism is true, it is true regardless of who asks the questions. The responses of an honest man would be the same regardless of who asks the questions.

    Finally, if he's dumb enough to be tricked by the ID movement, either Dawkins is incredibly stupid or else the ID folks aren't... (actually, both are true, but why bother to go there?) :-D

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Finally, if he's dumb enough to be tricked by the ID movement, either Dawkins is incredibly stupid or else the ID folks aren't."
    Sloppy, sloppy. Your triaglob associates would shred you for such a non sequitur, if you weren't on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm just curious as to what the purpose of this post is... I could snicker over Ted Haggard, but I wouldn't because I realize that should not influence you to rethink sexual ethics, or allow deviants to feel some sort of shadenfreude. It's simply irrelevant.

    “Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools.”

    Correct.


    That's all that can usefully be said. I'm just curious as to what you think is being accomplished here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because Ben Stein is a Jew, he naturally takes a pretty personal interest in the ethical implications or applications of Darwinism—vis-à-vis the Final Solution. Why wouldn’t he? Why shouldn’t he?

    It's also odd you commend Son of Rock for his being motivated by self interest and racial narcissism. The NT condemns both ("Take up thy cross and follow me", "Out of these stones God could raise up sons of Abraham").

    ReplyDelete
  15. THN said...

    "Your triaglob associates would shred you for such a non sequitur,"

    He's speaking from loads of personal experience

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree Paul.

    Of course what I said wasn't a non sequitur in the first place. (Methinks Thnuh just Googled "logical fallacies" and picked the first Latin phrase he saw.) At best, you could say it was a false dilemma, although I cured that by adding: "actually, both are true, but why bother to go there?" Thus, maybe a false trilemma :-P

    Sadly, Thnuh doesn't realize that he engaged in a hasty generalization when he responded. Not to mention throwing out a red herring. (Hey, maybe that means that Thnuh was just *projecting* anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rhology,

    I’ll make one or two points in addition to what Paul Manata and Peter Pike have said.

    i) There is, in principle, a distinction between concealment and deception. They overlap, and sometimes they’re morally equivalent, but there are other times, many times, when they’re not the same thing.

    In general, I’m not under a standing obligation to tell you what my motives are for asking a question. I’m ordinarily allowed to withhold information.

    There are certain situations in which “full disclosure” is appropriate, but in many other social situations we play our cards close to our vest, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    ii) On a related note, social obligations are often, to some degree, a two-way street. If you’re forthcoming, I’ll be forthcoming. But if you’re evasive, then you’re entitled to complete transparency from me.

    If you lay your cards on the table, then I’ll lay my cards on the table—but don’t expect me to lay my cards on the table while you refuse to tip your hand.

    If I’m candid about my “agenda,” and you use that information against me because you have something to hide, then I have a right to hide my agenda. If you discriminate against me because I’m honest, then don’t wax indignant if I’m more guarded about my ulterior motives.

    ReplyDelete
  18. thnuhthnuh said...

    “It's also odd you commend Son of Rock for his being motivated by self interest and racial narcissism.”

    Christian ethics is not opposed to enlightened self-interest, and I wouldn’t equate a survival instinct with racial narcissism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. thnuhthnuh said...

    “That's all that can usefully be said. I'm just curious as to what you think is being accomplished here.”

    To begin with, Dawkins’ feigned indignation is just a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the damage done to his cause by Expelled.

    Beyond that, Dawkins is a moral poseur. And it runs deeper than mere hypocrisy. His commitment to naturalistic evolution also commits him to moral nihilism. It’s important to keep reminding people of that connection.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ah ha ha. I was searching for something entirely different, but I'm really glad I stumbled upon this post. Well said.

    ReplyDelete