Winston has a go at Dawkins

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

Renowned television scientist Robert Winston bleats about the godless.

"I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord Winston,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2064898,00.html

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Is Winston mentioned in The God Delusion?

I have vague memories of reading in a book, but it might have been on television, in the not too distant past where an atheist is discussing religion with Winston, and jokingly saying that Winston doesn't really believe in religion anyway because he doesn't really believe any of the tenets of traditional faith. I wonder if it was in The Root of All Evil actually.

Winston certainly is someone I respect a lot for what he has done in reproductive medicine, although I totally disagree with his comments in this article.

[H3LL]

If it is not a delusion, what is it?

.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Lord Winston appears to criticize Dawkins for being rude. The article does not say that Winston disagrees with what Dawkins says, just with the way he says it.

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

FarSideOfTheMoon
I have vague memories of reading in a book, but it might have been on television, in the not too distant past where an atheist is discussing religion with Winston

It could have been from the documentary or his book :
Tying-in to a prime-time BBC1 TV series, Robert Winston's most personal book to date takes us through the history of religion and into the contemporary debate between science and religion.

www.amazon.co.uk/Story-God-Robert-M-L-Winston/dp/0593054938 - 66k - 23 Apr 2007 -

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

Lord Winston appears to criticize Dawkins for being rude. The article does not say that Winston disagrees with what Dawkins says, just with the way he says it.

Well Dawkins could have put it like:

"I say old chap I'd be grateful if you would kindly permit me to share a rather scathing and critical analysis of the mentality that you obviously possess that allows an otherwise sane person to believe in a mystical sky entity and to all intents and purposes give their lives over to it and even engage it in conversation then I'm sure that you would see the error of your ways, and then we can laugh about it over tea and crumpets".

Or even this:

"Oy you godbothering nutter you're delusional, get a life".

But as it is I thought he said it pretty much OK in the "God delusion". :D

[ImaginalDisc]

Ok, so most Christians think people who reject the god hypothesis are going to burn in Hell forever, and Dawkins thinks that people believe such things are entertaining a delusion.

Calling someone delusional is more rude than saying they will burn in ceaseless torment for all eternity?

[PenguinWarrior]

Is Winston mentioned in The God Delusion?

I have vague memories of reading in a book, but it might have been on television, in the not too distant past where an atheist is discussing religion with Winston, and jokingly saying that Winston doesn't really believe in religion anyway because he doesn't really believe any of the tenets of traditional faith. I wonder if it was in The Root of All Evil actually.

Winston certainly is someone I respect a lot for what he has done in reproductive medicine, although I totally disagree with his comments in this article.

Yes, Winston is mentioned in the book (where Dawkins describes him as a friend IIRC), and is interviewed in the TV series. Dawkins says that he finds Winston's view very vague and not very convincing (unsurprisingly). I have to say, I don't disagree. He seems to be one of those people who believe there should be a "spiritual" side to life, but who, when pushed, can't exactly pinpoint what they mean by that, but go to church/synagogue/mosque/chant prayers to the Wiccan goddess/meditate/whatever in an attempt to fill a perceived void.

Another thing is that he seems very reluctant to allow any scientific examination of religion. In particular I saw a TV series of his where he was critical of research that pointed to a religious gene, likening it to weighing the soul (a reference to the old experiment that claimed the human body got a certain amount lighter upon death, and thus concluded that the soul must weigh that amount). I think it is strange for a scientist to shy away from the examination of any particular avenue, even if it is close to one's heart.

On the other hand, I think "Bleats about the Godless" is a slightly harsh view of the comments he made. "Complains about attacks on religion" would be more accurate. I found it weird of him to put Dennett in there, as he is nowhere near as strident as Dawkins or Harris, but in the context of his "Religion is not something you should examine to closely or in a critical manner" beliefs, I suppose it makes sense. I think Winston just has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to religion. Oh well, seems like a reasonable guy otherwise.

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

Fair comment Penguin, I agree.

[CapelDodger]

Lord Winston appears to criticize Dawkins for being rude. The article does not say that Winston disagrees with what Dawkins says, just with the way he says it.

I suspect Prof Winston's real problem is with the issue being brought so insistently into the spotlight. Prof Winston (isn't it ludicrous that Lord is still thought by some to take precedent over Professor?) thinks that unnecessary, and vulgar.

I agree with Dawkins, religion has to be confronted head-on with no allowance for the sensibilities of practising "believers". God is a delusion; The God Delusion has an easy task in demonstrating the fact. Prof Winston feels insulted because believers have been given such an easy time of it for far too long. "You have to respect people's beliefs", I was told. "Bollocks to that", I thought. And sho' 'nuff, I was right.

[CapelDodger]

If it is not a delusion, what is it?

.

Do I still get the marks if I point out that since it is a delusion the "what" it might be is undefined? :)

[bignickel]

Ok, so most Christians think people who reject the god hypothesis are going to burn in Hell forever, and Dawkins thinks that people believe such things are entertaining a delusion.

Calling someone delusional is more rude than saying they will burn in ceaseless torment for all eternity?
Thank you for that post ID; I've been waiting for the perfect response for this, and that's it.

[Piggy]

The difference b/t Dawkins and Winston is that Dawkins is able to explain precisely why belief in God should be considered a delusion, whereas Winston merely hurls the accusation of arrogance, or of the appearance of arrogance -- God forbid! -- at the atheists (along with a false accusation of scientific absolutism, a philosophy which Dawkins pointedly and repeatedly rejects) while never engaging the substance of the issue.

Winston wrongly accuses Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett, and others of merely discounting religious thought, as though they had simply brushed it aside, rather than having offered extensive, thoughtful refutations as they have in fact done.

Winston's comments are further evidence of the strange and radical hold which the spiritual mindset can have, even over intelligent, educated, civilized people.

God is worse than kudzu.

[Meadmaker]

Ok, so most Christians think people who reject the god hypothesis are going to burn in Hell forever, and Dawkins thinks that people believe such things are entertaining a delusion.

Calling someone delusional is more rude than saying they will burn in ceaseless torment for all eternity?

Good point.




I'm no fan of Dawkins on the subject of religion, and I've been very critical of him over the last six months or so since I first read some of his stuff. However, I'm currently reading "The God Delusion" and so far at least, it really isn't very rude at all. That surprised me, frankly. I thought I would find it offensive, and maybe it will turn out that way in the end, but so far it's well written, and not actually offensive.

[EHLO]

I was quite a fan of Winston but after catching a bit of his series "The Story of God" the other night it seems that these days he's just eyeing up the Templeton prize.

He's a well qualified, intelligent, high profile, highly articulate man who aggravates people like me (and presumably Richard Dawkins) because despite all of these attributes he peddles God as an answer instead of admitting he doesn't know something.

Dawkins makes an appearance on Winston's documentary in which Dawkins presses for an answer as to why Winston believes. The answer is basically that he can't stand any kind of "absolutist" position on something we, and science in particular, can't know the answer to. How that leads to God I don't know.

In contrast, in the same program Winston goes on a tour of the Creationist Museum and challenges Ken Ham to a radio debate about creationism because he is so abhorred at how science is being distorted by the creationists.

If you can't tell, the program totally pi**ed me off! I haven't been so disappointed by someone since Paul Davies fell off the cart.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

EHLO, I think that might be what I vaguely referred to in post #2 above. Over time you see so many documentaries they all blur together a bit.

It is hard to understand how someone so exposed to science for their whole life still clings to such spiritual nonsense.
Apart from the religious gene stuff, I've always thought his moralising has been sensible and not influenced unduly by religion. I'd say he works in a potential moral/political/religious minefield.

[roger]

I think it is a matter of the word seeming rather pejorative. Granted, Dawkins is using the word in an entirely accurate fashion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason. However, it is a word with very strong perjorative overtones; it's a word that is often used as an insult or a dismisal. I'll not get into a dictionary argument over it, but in general if someone says "you are mistaken" they are leaving the conversation open to more discussion; if someone says "you're delusional" it often comes as a parting shot.

I'm not faulting Dawkins for his title. It certainly has more pizazz than the alternate title: "The mistake some people make in believing in God, and why I think it is a mistake; can't we all get along" :) OTOH, I'm sure Dawkins and the publisher knew that it would be a provocative title.

I remember I once posted that somebody was 'ignorant' about a topic. I meant it entirely neutrally; I'd equally say I'm entirely ignorant about, oh, Peruvian pottery. I know nothing about it, I'm uninformed. That's not an insult, just a statement about a lack of knowledge. Yet, it didn't surprise me when the person took offense at the term, and I felt bad about it.

[brodski]

isn't it ludicrous that Lord is still thought by some to take precedent over Professor?

No really, seeing as “Lord” is a (very) protected title in the UK, whereas anyone can call themselves “professor”.
And given the virtually abolition of the hereditary peerage (certainly the abolition of the power of hereditary pees), the title Lord indicates that an individual ahs achieved enough to be elevated to a permanent position in our nations government.

[ImaginalDisc]

Thank you for that post ID; I've been waiting for the perfect response for this, and that's it.

Thanks, feel free to steal it.

Good point.


Wait, Meadmaker agrees with me?

:jaw-dropp

J/K

I think that at the heart of the issue is that people believe rude things, but rarely say them outright. People seem to react to well reasoned criticism as strongly, or more strongly, than an insult. Most theists really do think they have the right answers, and picking apart religion's claims and pretentions to morality is a huge problem. Dawkins is very polite, in that he addresses the subject, but he has a razor sharp mind that he's not only set to making his case, but set to making his case clearly and logically.

Even if I disagreed with, for example, his chapter on the weaknesses of various schools of thought in taxonomy in The Blind Watchmaker I wouldn't find him rude. I might say he's wrong, but he never says anything that doesn't have a sound basis.

The very idea of rationally examining religion is anathema to many people and Dawkins will draw fire regardless of how he goes about it. I think that's why Wilson rails against Dennet despite Dennet's amiable and armchair approach. Dennet doesn't seem to advocate atheism even when he agrees with it and searches for the biological cause of religion.

Between them, IMO, they examine religion more thoroughly than anyone before them, and much more even handedly.

[Meadmaker]

Wait, Meadmaker agrees with me?

It was a shock to me as well.

Maybe there are miracles after all.:)


Of course, Dawkins' title is a bit "in your face", but it isn't actually rude. He's just writing about something that has been considered off limits for a long time. To be honest, I expected a rather mean, nasty, book, and I think Dawkins can be a bit mean and nasty, but so far, in the parts of his book I have read, he hasn't been.

Meanwhile, you had a point. Dawkins is saying that religious people are deluded. Religious people are saying that atheists are at best, deluded, and at worst, evil people who deserve to burn forever in a lake of fire. It does seem a bit strange for the religious people to take offense at the lesser insult.

[Rrose Selavy]

I'm not faulting Dawkins for his title. It certainly has more pizazz than the alternate title: "The mistake some people make in believing in God, and why I think it is a mistake; can't we all get along" :) OTOH, I'm sure Dawkins and the publisher knew that it would be a provocative title.

.

How about "The God Illusion"? Less provocative though.

Winston can be very rude - in a documentary I once saw him talk to a theatre assistant in such a way as if to try to deliberately embarrass them for the cameras. That put me off him for good.

He also got in trouble for blabbing to the press about how and where Cherie Blair was going to have her last child . So much for patient confidentiality, PM's wife or not. The "Story of God" just put the cap on it.

[Moochie]

Renowned television scientist Robert Winston bleats about the godless.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2064898,00.html

Perhaps he's suffering a relevancy deficit.

The article states that Winston's a "practising Jew." Clearly, he needs to practice a whole lot more if he's ever going to be any good at it.

M.

[Civilized Worm]

My friend is studying biology in Dundee and attended the Winston lecture mentioned in that article so I'll see if I can get some feedback on it.

[CapelDodger]

The article states that Winston's a "practising Jew." Clearly, he needs to practice a whole lot more if he's ever going to be any good at it.

Have you got some sort of scoring system in mind?

[CapelDodger]

No really, seeing as “Lord” is a (very) protected title in the UK ...

Sad, but true.

... whereas anyone can call themselves “professor”.

Which may work wonders across the Pond, but is more an admission than a claim over here, let's face it.



And given the virtually abolition of the hereditary peerage (certainly the abolition of the power of hereditary peer), the title Lord indicates that an individual ahs achieved enough to be elevated to a permanent position in our nations government.

My previous cynical aspersions leave me mortified. How did I miss the advent of meritocracy? :cool:

[Moochie]

Have you got some sort of scoring system in mind?

Yes, when he has equaled or surpassed Woody Allen-ness, he will be worthy.

M.

[The Grave]

The difference b/t Dawkins and Winston is that Dawkins is able to explain precisely why belief in God should be considered a delusion, whereas Winston merely hurls the accusation of arrogance, or of the appearance of arrogance -- God forbid! -- at the atheists (along with a false accusation of scientific absolutism, a philosophy which Dawkins pointedly and repeatedly rejects) while never engaging the substance of the issue.

Winston wrongly accuses Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett, and others of merely discounting religious thought, as though they had simply brushed it aside, rather than having offered extensive, thoughtful refutations as they have in fact done.

Winston's comments are further evidence of the strange and radical hold which the spiritual mindset can have, even over intelligent, educated, civilized people.

God is worse than kudzu.


Quite right, that man!

When I was recently asked for my christian name, I promptly replied:"I don't have one. BUT my first name is Neil!"

Me:"After all there is no god."

Reply:"Ah.But that's your opinion."

This is the crux of IT...People still think in terms of my opinion is as good as yours...evidence be damned!

Griff...