I like Richard Dawkins. He’s a prolific atheist, and I’m a theist, but desipte this fundamental difference I like his rational approach and commitment to good science and entertaining polemics. On my fondness for Dawkins, fellow blogger Stephen Graham and I disagree. But today I saw a piece in the Guardian by Andrew Brown which made me sit up in surprise:
“I still think The Selfish Gene is a wonderful piece of pop science. Not everybody does. The philosopher Mary Midgley gave it a scathing review in Philosophy and when I told Dawkins at the beginning of our interview that I had just come from reading the piece, he said, straight into my tape recorder, that Midgley had confessed to Ullica SegerstrÃ¥le, a distinguished sociologist of science, that she had not in fact read the book before reviewing it.”
I had heard this before, perhaps from Dawkins himself. But the article goes on:
“[For a number of reasons] this could not possibly be true. None the less he said it with such conviction that I took the trouble to track down Dr SegerstrÃ¥le and - after she had failed to respond to emails - to ring her up in Illinois. She said that of course it was nonsense.”
Dawkins later apologised for getting this rather pertinent fact wrong:
“I had an unexpected email from Dawkins himself, in Chicago, where he had just had supper with Ullica SegerstrÃ¥le. They had discussed the matter and come to the happy conclusion that it was all a misunderstanding. He also, I believe, wrote to Mary Midgley apologising for telling me this rather unpleasant lie about her.”
But -and this is the incredible thing- when Brown met Dawkins at a function some time later:
“I introduced myself, and clearly this stirred a memory, because before we even sat down he said to me: ‘Do you know? Mary Midgley confessed that she had never even read The Selfish Gene before reviewing it.’ I didn’t know what to say.”
And that isn’t the end of it. Three weeks ago on Dawkins writes on his own website:
“Mrs Midgley confessed to Ullica that she had not in fact read The Selfish Gene when she wrote that article. She has since backtracked from that confession, and I was inclined to believe her.”
What is going on here? As Brown comments at the end of his piece:
“Richard Dawkins has made his name arguing against superstition and wishful thinking; he is a man who demands good evidence for every factual claim about the world - and yet he is also, apparently, a man unable to rid himself of this impossible belief about Dr Midgley; it must be very comforting to him.”
Dawkins regularly responds to stuff written about him, particularly in the national press, so we’ll await his response with bated breath. The Dawkinsistas are already at it on the Guardian comments section: they’re a loyal flock, and you’ve got to love that.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Stephen // Oct 23, 2007 at 1:08 pm
There is a lot to admire about Dawkins. I remember him being questioned by William Crawley for BBC Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence programme and William asked him something like: “Calling religious believers deluded - that’s a bit offensive isn’t it?” Dawkins reply was classic: “I don’t care how offensive it is because it’s true.” I love that. Speaking what one thinks to be the truth and to hell with anyone who moans about being offended. Fantastic.
What I dislike about Dawkins is that a lot of what he says about religion isn’t rational as John thinks. In fact sometimes he seems to barely understand the object of his criticism. His work on the argument from design is very good, largely because he’s on home territory but almost everything else I have read of his on theology or philosophy has been little better than a GCSE R.E. student could muster.
I remember having a lengthy debate on the book “The God Delusion” with Brian McClinton of the Ulster Humanists on the BBC blogsite “Will and Testament” and I was incredibly disappointed that a prominent atheist in Northern Ireland was less than competent in defending Dawkins and of giving me one good argument from Dawkin’s book that should convince a theist that his belief in God is wrong. Dawkins wasn’t interested in trying to persuade religious believers, and I have yet to meet anyone but atheists who find his book a compelling case against theism. There are far more competent and intelligent atheist writers out there, and I think atheism is in trouble if it elects Dawkins as it’s main spokesperson.
S.
2 Dave Powell // Oct 24, 2007 at 2:26 am
I think dawkins and new atheism in general has been a positive phnomenen. There may be better introductions to Atheism than the god delusion, but it has introduced a lot of people to thinking critically about religion.
I’d rate him slightly higher than a GCSE RE student, and i’ve yet to hear one good argument from a theist to convince me that a belief in god is right.
3 Brian Jennings // Oct 24, 2007 at 9:33 am
Dave what is your argument from an atheist to convince you that belief in god is wrong?
4 Stephen // Oct 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Slightly higher than a GCSE RE student? Yeah, probably, but still not great for such an esteemed professor.
5 Dave Powell // Oct 25, 2007 at 2:52 am
Brian, my point is that I haven’t heard a compelling reason to believe in god. Its not up to the atheists to convince me that god doesnt exist - I already believe he doesn’t.
6 Stephen // Oct 25, 2007 at 11:22 am
Dave, if you ever get time you might try what Brian McClinton couldn’t do - tell me one argument - just one - that Dawkins presents in his book that should worry theists.
S
Leave a Comment