The Courtier’s Reply
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
(Link)
[Update]
And prompted by a commenter’s mention of Dawkins’ “hysterical arguments” here is a recent lecture of his on the topic of religion. A comment which (if you watch the video) amply demonstrates Blake’s Law in action. Blake’s Law follows The Courtier’s Reply in the article linked to above. A coincidence or delicious irony?
[Update #2]
Tags: courtier's reply, dawkins, myers
June 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am
This little story really sums it up. These were the very approaches taken by so many reviewers of The God Delusion.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The analogy fails in two ways:
On the first level, Dawkins doesn’t interact at all with any of the arguments (and there are many good arguments, regardless of how persuasive you find them) which seek to demonstrate that the Emperor does have clothes.
On the second level, if Dawkins is going to ex hypothesi criticize the clothes themselves, then he does need to have read and understood the works which describe those clothes. It is simply sophomoric to write a book opposing Christianity if (i) you haven’t engaged with some of the principal arguments in favor of it and (ii) some of your main reasons for rejecting it are based on misrepresentations.
To be honest, it puzzles me that you’d defend Dawkins. I always thought you were too serious and moderate to find his hysterical arguments convincing.
Regards,
Bnonn
June 30th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Hi Damian, (I’ve been busy for a couple weeks!)
I don’t see how the charge of “Blake’s Law” actually works… Is it just more or less complaining (I wanted to say whining) about people commonly calling Dawkins, et al ‘fundamentalist atheists’?? Why make up a “Law”? Just for style points?
-d-
June 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Oh yes, and why would Dawkins be enough of an authority on religion for me to a) download [and on my slow-freeking-internet-connection!] and b) actually watch a lecture of him speaking about it?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Dale, a “Law” in this sense is just a meme that describes a particular kind of fallacy. It’s similar to what happens when I try to explain how evolution works and an ill-informed Christian pipes up with “Oh yeah? It takes more faith to believe in evolution”. It’s a kind of a switch-a-rooney where the offended Christian takes a word that they used to proudly wear (in this case “faith” or “fundamentalist”) and apply it to their opponent because they know how distasteful it will be to them.
I took the meaning of the word “hysterical” to mean “wildly irrational” rather than “hilarious” in Bnonn’s comment because I’ve seen this particular meme a lot lately where Dawkins is dismissed as being fundamentalist or abrasive or even shrill. I linked the video to show that even when Dawkins is talking solely on the topic of religion - I’ve never heard him accused of being abrasive or hysterical when he lectures on the mechanisms of evolution - his manners and arguments are far from hysterical or fundamentalist.
He’s not an authority on religion. He’s just claiming that the emperor has no clothes, that religious claims have no evidence. If religion is based on nothing more than imagination (which is pretty much what he’s saying) then about the only thing he can say is “where is the evidence?” or “where are the clothes?”. The Courtier’s Reply aptly sums up the fluster that many religious people go into when asked that simple question by someone like Dawkins who is, to them, woefully under-qualified to even begin to ask.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Dawkins also makes the point that the god hypothesis, as a hypothesis about reality, is (he thinks) a question for science. Christian apologists seem to reinforce this view when they attempt to ‘use’ scientific knowledge to support a god hypothesis.
So, the critics using these arguments have missed the point, or more disingenuously, attempt to divert the discussion away from science and back on to their own theological turf.
And, of course this particular turf starts with a preconceived idea (god) and then develops arguments to support it - in contrast to science which derives the belief or theory from the evidence.
This is not to say that Dawkins has necessarily been successful in his scientific investigation (he doesn’t claim complete success). But it is certainly a valid approach to take.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Ken,
If you’re going to continue to use ‘reality’ to mean “that category of existence in which we know for durn sure there isn’t anything non-natural”, then we can’t really have much discussion. I understand why (as an atheist [or non-theist]) you want to do that, but I don’t think we should attach either atheism or theism to the word ‘reality’ - let’s just let it be what it is: the largest category for all ‘real’ things.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
I don’t know where you get these definitions from, Dale. ‘Reality’ is surely a very acceptable and understandable term - that which exists. It’s not dependent on religious belief. I don’t understand it the way you claim.
Now, you can divide reality up any which way you want - but accept in doing so you are making huge assumptions not based on evidence.
I know some people want to impose a ‘natural’/’supernatural’ boundary - but where do you place it? It’s going to be, at least, a moving boundary (just think how many things formerly understood as ’supernatural’ are now ‘natural.’
In practice scientists today don’t make this distinction in their investigations. How scientific would it be to declare beforehand that “this phenomenon is ’supernatural’”?
We all accept that there may be parts of reality that humanity can never investigate or understand because of technological, cognitive or other limitations. Our attitude is surely that we will face this problem when we come to it. Any other would be a cop out.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Thanks Ken,
I’m talking about what Dawkins is doing by stating that the ‘God hypothesis’ is ‘a question for science’ - as if God would be a part of the universe.
As I’ve said before, scientists (and I think you agree here) need not be troubled by either limits or impositions upon ‘reality’. Their work isn’t affected by the games played by some over whether or not reality has a supernatural dimension or not. They just get on with testing, observing and experimenting with those things that they test, observe and experiment with.
In this sense, working scientists don’t really need to use (let alone technically define) the word ‘reality’ at all. They just do what they do.
Again, my problem is with Dawkins trying to use science to disprove God - which seems obvious by his statement that the question of God’s existence is a question for science. Does he really think that God would be a part of the universe?
July 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I actually agree that use of science to disprove a god (as in the books by Dawkins and Stenger) do come across as somewhat naive. It’s in the same class as the use of science to prove a god (as by Craig and many other Christian apologists). it is all just too naive and somewhat tacky.
One may actually propose a creator hypothesis (as in the science fiction book Cosm)- but if such a being was actually scientifically proved to have existed most theists would not recognise or accept it as their god.
To my mind there is not a real objectively existing god (which rules out physics, cosmology, etc. as investigative tools) - but there is certainly a god in some peoples’ minds and cultures. That is the interesting thing to study. Dawkins makes some attempt (not very convincing to me) but I think there is more of value in books by Dennett(Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) and Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained).
No, I don’t think god is a part of the universe (local or wider). That is the wrong question. God is part of our mind - at least for some of us. That’s where we should be studying the phenomenon.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’ve read The God Delusion and from what I can remember I can’t think of anywhere that Dawkins even tried to disprove God. All I remember is that he pointed out many of the fallacies of various people’s beliefs about the Judeo-Christian God, asked for evidence and stated that he thinks it very very unlikely that there is such a being. Perhaps I missed something.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Dawkins seems to watch himself somewhat carefully - I’ve not seen any quotes where he flat-out ’says’ that science disproves God, but it’s implicit (explicit?) in much (all?) of what he says…
I’m reading ‘The Language of God’ by Francis Collins (Mr. human genome), and he points out a quote that likely lies behind the ’science disproves God’ mindset; from evolutionary biologist, E.O. Wilson:
He should stick to biology…
July 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Dale, here is E.O. Wilson’s quote in context:
Wilson is renowned for for his work on sociobiology which very much overlaps with myths and religions and so on. He’s not some militant stepper-out-of-fields-of-expertise. If anything, E.O. Wilson is even more careful with his wording than Dawkins.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Thanks Damian,
Very helpful of you to provide the (always enlightening and clarifying) context.
If you don’t mind, could you comment by way of distinguishing what you think this quote is saying and what it is not saying? He appears to want to ‘exclude’ ‘the divine spirit’ and other things from scientific responsibility, yet then goes on to say that scientific naturalism ‘explains’ traditional religion as ‘a wholly material phenomenon’??? Is he making a distinction between the (possibility) of a deity (i.e. ‘the divine spirit’) and the various acts of human thinking, writing, praying and worshipping it (i.e. ‘traditional religion’)???
July 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Sorry fella. I don’t know enough about this side of things and certainly not enough about E.O. Wilson’s stance to be able to do justice to the topic. I just thought it sounded like a pretty uncharacteristic quote from the little I’d heard from him so I looked it up and saw that it had been taken out of context (especially with the all-too-critical “If this interpretation is correct,” chopped off the beginning). Was that how he was quoted in the book you are reading?
July 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Unfortunately, yes. Although even the wider context of the quote seems to (depending on how you interpret it) make the same point that Collins said it was making.