It must be said that a scientist who claims religion has nothing to offer science is every bit as much a fundamentalist (in the common, derogatory sense of the word) as the religious believer who claims that science can offer nothing to religion.
This polarization is the natural development of knee-jerk, armchair practitioners on both sides, with the media gladly stirring the pot at every opportunity. Faith and reason are opposites; religion and science cannot live peaceably together; etc.
What makes for significantly less interesting and sensational headlines, in entertainment section as well and religion and science, is an in-depth pursuit of truth. Sound bites – or for our purposes, text bites – are far more effective at rousing the emotions, increasing letters to the editor and ultimately, subscriptions and advertising revenue. Send in the clowns.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T, That’s What Science Means to Me
“The ethics of science is not ruled only by respect for fact,” Niebuhr says,”but by respect also for those to whom facts are communicated. The interpersonal faithfulness of the scientific community appears in this, that it is a truth-telling and not only a truth-seeking society of men.”
At the risk of belaboring the issue, this is where I have some trouble with The God Delusion. Dawkins’ target audience would not understand even half of his book, so of course they will not read it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, as Dawkins chides those who will probably not read his book with words they would barely understand.
What is the point? Most have some area of expertise that utilizes a set of words unique to the discipline that only those of the same discipline can understand. For example, unless you are a musician - a performing songwriter in particular - the alphanumeric term “SM58” probably means nothing to you. If you are however a performing songwriter of any experience, you know that the SM58 is widely used microphone manufactured by a company named Shure.
If I told you I needed “a bit less mid in my monitor”, would you know what to do? Would you know that I would like you to reduce the amount of mid-level audio frequency coming from my monitor? Further, would you know that a monitor is a speaker directed at the performer (rather than the audience) that allows the performer to hear what he is performing?
For me to speak to you like this, knowing full well that you will not understand is an attempt to make a fool of you. You wouldn’t like me much and as a result – and THE result I was probably attempting to achieve - you would probably not stick around for more.
Essentially, Dawkins fails to communicate to the audience he names as his target. I’m not sure this is unintentional. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with his writing if it was meant for other scientists or atheists, but it is not. It is written for those “blinded by religion looking for a way out” and for “dyed-in-the-wool-faith-heads”. It is a challenging read – some chapters more than others - and a long one, even for those who regularly read books of similar length.
This is Part 2 of a series. Read Part 1 of this series
here.>Read Part 3
here.
