Flew was attacked by Dawkins in a classic Ad Hominem Abusive: he declared that if Flew could not write his own book, well...(the implication was that Flew was used for profit by an unscrupulous ghost writer, in turn implying senility). Charges of Flew's senility and worse raged around the internet. Missing entirely was a debate on the merits or demerits of Flew's thoughts that resulted in his change of philosophy. Flew became the kicking boy of the Atheist elites.
Flew responded with a release declaring that he meant every word in the book. He was neither used, nor senile.
Now Flew has reversed the attack by hammering on Dawkins. Dawkins, says Flew, is a "secular bigot". Dawkins, says Flew, used only the easy Einsteinian positions in his claim for Einstein being on his team. Dawkins, says Flew, did not address the hard statements Einstein made concerning his deism.
Dawkins has responded in true Ad Hominem Abusive: Flew, says Dawkins, not only cannot write a book, he also cannot read a book. Dawkins claims to have addressed the "hard" issue in the first chapter of his book, "The God Delusion".
I have a copy of the God Delusion, so I reread the first chapter to see what Dawkins was referring to. Interestingly, Dawkins gives no references for the Einstein quotes he uses. He attempts to refute some of Einstein's statments by using other Einstein statements, but all are not only out of context, they are without documentation as to source or date. The notes in the back of the book refer to himself, Scott Adams, Daniel Dennett, and some newspaper accounts used in the following section, but nothing whatsoever on Einstein's quotes, or any of the other quotations used in the first section. There is no possible way to discern the order or timing of Einstein's quotes from Dawkins' treatment. And the other alleged quotes are merely gratuitous swipes at various religions, not any sort of commentary on the content or validity of Einstein's deism.
So, far from being a scholarly work uncovering actual truth and documenting the process, Dawkins' writing is just so much personal opinion, a diatribe without apparent foundation in anything other than Dawkins' feverished mind.
The fact that Einstein said, "I do not believe in a personal God", would lead one to think that the God Einstein actually believed in is an impersonal one...the God of a deist. In fact, Dawkins takes it upon himself to tell us what Einstein really meant each of the times that he - Einstein - referred to God. So desperate is Dawkins to defuse the fact of Einstein's deism that he starts his book with his version of a refutation. As a last resort, he latches onto Einstein's famous saying and appropriates it for himself with only slight Materialistic bending and folding:
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."
To which Dawkins claims to agree, with the caveat that "cannot grasp" is not necessarily "forever ungraspable". (TGD, pg 19)
And there it is. A statement by a genius, mutilated by a wannabe in order to attempt to steal an obvious point from the opposition. Dawkins' thought and tactics are cheap on any market.
14 comments:
Perhaps you should checkk again. My memory is that Dawkins acknowledges Max Jammers book Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology as the source of his quotes.
In fact, this acknowledgment is the reason I went out and bought Jammer's book.
This mistake(?) on your part suggests to me that your analysis of Dawkins' book is not objective.
Actually you are correct, Dawkins does refer in the text to Jammer's book, as I found rereading it still again. He does not however, place any of the quotes into context or into a time frame. I do not have Jammer's book, but I do have several of Einstein's which make a more direct reference, I would think.
Here is a quote from Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", pg 20:
"One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue tor the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration towards that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. [emphasis in original].
Dawkins' attempt to co-opt Einstein as one of Dawkins' own brights is a failure. Einstein rebutted philosophical materialism in the above quote and in other sources; moreover these were late in his life.
Perhaps Dawkins should read Einstein directly, rather than through the filter of another author.... or maybe he just doesn't know how to read a real book any more?
I have a general problem with Atheist and Skeptic views on reality for similar reasons. Hence cherry picking science to support a philosophy of materialism that denies the validity of the latest advances in quantum physics and string/m theory because they specifically allude to things of a spiritual nature.
I have been performing some "demonstrations" of late to prove the existence of various concepts that drive atheists and skeptics off their rockers. Many would call me a theist, but I am far from being religious and that makes me hard to nail down for them.
Here's my answer to some recent encounters I had on the Center for Inquiry discussion forum.
I don’t think Dawkins’ tries to co-opt Einstein at all – far from it. He is in fact clearing up misunderstanding arising from the rather frequent use of quotes by some theists to claim that Einstein was a theist. Dawkins analysis shows Einstein to be closer to a pantheist than a deist, let alone a theist.
It seems to me that you are more interested in bad mouthing Dawkins (and hence misrepresent him) than in what Einstein’s beliefs really were.
You're kidding right? Dawkins is clearly trying to put Einstein on his side of the fence. His abuse of Einstein using mined quotes is as great as anyone's. I'll say it again, read Einstein!! Forget Dawkins or anyone else, read Einstein! It is abundantly clear from Einstein's own words that he believed in a source for a rational universe. He also believed that - if there is truth - that science and religion should both reflect that, up to the point that science can no longer function as a source. Religion, in his opinion, points to the underlying source for rationality, a place where science cannot go,
"By way of understanding he acheives a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble atttitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man." OOMLY, pg 27. emph added.
Read pages 26, 27, 28 of "Out Of My Later Years"; read it all not just the quote mines. Dawkins is just as guilty as anyone of quote mining (second hand no less) and using the mined quotes for his own purposes.
It is not necessary for me to bad mouth Dawkins; all I have to do is refer to what he says and does.
I think the point is, Stan, that it has been theists who have attempted (and still do) to put Einstein on their side of the fence. I think that is dishonest. But of course easy to do with "quote mining". One has to look at what was actually said in totality and context.
I personally think Dawkins has given a more honest presentation of Einstein's beliefs. But leave that aside (Dawkins can talk for himself).
The important thing is that the theists have been, and continue to be, dishonest on this.
I would say some theists have been uninformed or misinformed. Jumping immediately to the claim of dishonesty on the part of theists is typically an (ir)rational response squad groupie tactic.
You might want to stay away from that knee jerk reaction if you want to be taken seriously.
The errors of "the theists" do not bear on the errors of Dawkins. Each position must stand on its own merits or demerits. Claims against the theists in an attempt to support Dawkins are in fact Tu Quoque... a fallacy in the Red Herring family. Assuming that there are errors by theists, and I'm sure there are, that in no way justifies errors by Atheists.
But if you'd care to be specific about particular positions of particular theists, I'd be happy to discuss actual cases that you might bring against specific theists. However, making blanket charges against an entire but anonymous group is a second error.
Your point, "that the theists have been, and continue to be, dishonest on this", is a deflection of the conversation away from the subject, which is Dawkins published errors. In other words your statement is a Red Herring, and is not part of the subject at hand.
Back to the point, Dawkins is the person being discussed, analyzed, and found dishonest in this particular conversation.
Perhaps to clarify - I am not tarring all theists with that brush - far from it. I had hoped the context made that clear. And, Stan, surely you are not denying that some theists are making this claim.
Perhaps some of the theists who do this are just being lazy. But, even so, they should be challenged on that mistake. And some of the theists making this claim are so shrill in the process that their honesty must be questioned.
Stan - I can't see any error of Dawkins here. After all, you are the one who acknowledge the mistake in claiming that Dawkins had not attributed or referenced his quotes.
Ken, again: my discussion was specifically about Dawkins. I admitted that I hadn't caught the reference to Jammer; I accepted responsibility for that.
But the Jammer issue just compounds the nature of Dawkins' second face: He tries to paint Flew as senile for not doing his own work, yet he himself does not do his own work: he didn't even read Einstien, he went to Jammer for a quote mine. Then he quotes out of order and out of context in a blatant attempt to change the meaning of Einstein's words. That is intellectual dishonesty, it is blatant, and Dawkins is caught red-handed.
Dawkins works like this: he doesn't address issues directly, he attacks the credibility of his attackers. Same M.O. as PZ Meyers; belittle with name calling rather than meet the intellectual challenge straight on. For some reason this approach really appeals to certain people (Jerry Springer Syndrome) and has made Dawkins a cult hero.
But he is rationally transparent.
OK - I get the message. Your don't like Dawkins or Meyers. I actually think differently to you on that.
But you have done absolutely nothing to support your claim that Dawkins misrepresented Einstein. He criticised Einstein for being somewhat capricious in the way he used the word "god" but I think may people will agree with that.
I don't think you have produced any evidence to oppose the conclusion that Einsteins beliefs were probably nearer to pantheist than deist. They certainly weren't theist - were they?.
And yes, I know Einstein rejected the atheist label (many non-theists do). Dawkins certainly doesn't deny that.
So far as I know, Einstein never said, "I am a pantheist", nor did he say "I am a deist". His writings are heavily flavored towards deism in my opinion. I certainly am not of the impression that he worshipped all of nature as god. Nor did he refer to himself as god or say "we are all god or some divine unity". For example, on pg 32 of Einstein's "Out Of My Later Years", the following statements are made:
"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary." [emph in original]
and,
"...representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of the scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors."
Pantheism does not separate science and religion in this manner.
In fact Einstein referred to something beyond nature and man's capacity to reason:
"...the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man."
If we are all god, nothing would be inaccessible. Nor if there is no god. So this statement seems neither Atheistic, nor pantheistic.
But all of this is quote mining: read it in its entirety yourself. Forget Dawkins, read Einstein.
My objection is to the attempt by Dawkins to co-opt Einstein into an aura of atheism. Einstien was not an Atheist. Dawkins is dishonest in trying to claim him. It is an appeal to authority gone awry.
This continuing claim of Einstein into certain religious categories is an entire deviation of the subject of the post, which was not Einstein; it was about Dawkins and Flew. Dawkins used only cheap shots to rebut Flew, when he, Dawkins, is guilty of the identical things he accused Flew of, suggesting senility in Flew. If it applies to Flew, then it also applies to Dawkins.
Dawkins is an intellectual profligate, in my opinion. YMMV.
Well, as you said, it is your opinion. You haven't convinced me, though.
It's not my job to convince you of anything. I just point out the obvious. You'll believe what you want to.
Post a Comment